Published in

Elsevier, Health & Place, 4(10), p. 329-338

DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.08.001

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

No alternative? The regulation and professionalization of complementary and alternative medicine in the United Kingdom

Journal article published in 2004 by David B. Clarke, Marcus A. Doel, Jeremy Segrott ORCID
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In conjunction with its growing popularity, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the United Kingdom has witnessed increasing professionalization, partly prompted by the landmark Parliamentary Inquiry that reported in November 2000. Professionalization has become a significant strategy for practitioner associations and a key focus for the government, media, and patient groups. It is being driven by concern over the interests of patients and consumers, and in relation to the possible integration of certain forms of CAM into publicly funded healthcare. It is, moreover, being reconfigured in explicitly national terms. This paper draws on research into practitioner associations representing nine CAM modalities in the UK—aromatherapy, Chinese herbal medicine, chiropractic, crystal healing, feng shui, ‘lay’ homeopathy, medical homeopathy, osteopathy, and Radionics—, examining the recent wave of professionalization in relation to Foucault's concern with ‘techniques of the self.’ It highlights the contrasting experience of an association of Chinese herbalists seeking statutory self-regulation (SSR) and an association of chiropractors that was instrumental in securing SSR for chiropractic.