Vol. 24 No. 5 November 2004

In the last Homœopathica editorial I put forward the idea that an unacceptably high percentage of practitioners project (in my view at least) a less-than-professional image and do harm to the status of homœopathy in a broad sense.I have been asked by a couple of people who, in general, agreed with my position what I saw as ways to remedy this perceived situation. Frankly, I can not envisage any workable scheme that would receive the endorsement of the majority of homœopaths; but here are some ideas . . .

Get the occupation name “homœopath” restricted by law to members of one organisation with strict, audited, standards for skill, behaviour and premises-and high membership fees (such as chiropractors).

Get wide public recognition of an elite group within the industry-like the way builders developed the status accorded Registered Master Builders. Something like this was hoped for when the three existing organisations of New Zealand homœopaths united to form the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths, but unfortunately since there are many people outside that organisation calling themselves homœopaths, either entirely selfstyled or associated with bodies with names incorporating words like “charter” or “register” it would take a very expensive advertising campaign to get the degree of public recognition the project would require to be seen as a success.

Restrict the occupational title of homœopath to people who have been awarded a National Diploma in Homœopathy or people who have been assessed by a competent body to see if their existing qualification or prior learning experience could be recognised as equivalent to a Dip Hom. • Or the existing registers could require a much higher standard of premises of their members than they do currently.

It does not really matter; given time the situation will sort itself out.

Bruce Barwell