ATCM Guidance for Responding to the Consultation
Q1: W hat evidence is there of harm to the public
currently
as
a
result
of
the
activities
of
acupuncturists, herbalists and traditional Chinese
medicine practitioners? W hat is its likelihood and
severity?
有什么证据证明目前针灸师，草药师及中医师所从事的活
动对公众造成危害？其可能性和严重性又是什么？
Answer: Harm
Comments: unqualified or incompetent practitioners
can cause harm to patients; incidents have
happened in the past; Money -driven people only
care about making money from the activities of
these professions and put public safety in great
risk. .
Q2: W ould this harm be lessened by statutory
regulation? If so, how?
这种危害会因立法管理而减轻吗？如果是，怎样减轻？
Answer: yes.
Comments: Statutory regulation (SR) can safeguard
patients by disallowing unqualified/incompetent
“practitioners” to practise, preventing money -driven
activities. In fact, most harmful incidents happened
in the past are caused by those “practitioners” and
business owners due to lack of statutory regulation.
Q3: W hat do you envisage would be the benefi t to
the public, to practitioners and to businesses,
associated with introducing statutory regulation?
您能设想到立法管理会对公众，对从业人员及其经营有什
么好处？
Answer: Significant benefit
Comments: Ensure practitioners to be appropriately
qualified and competent; significantly reduce risks of
harm to the public; prevent the unqualified from
practicing; prevent money -driven activities ; improve
clinical efficacy.
Q4: W hat do you envisage would be the regulatory
burden and financial costs, to the public, to
practitioners, and to businesses, associated with
introducing statutory regulation? Are these costs
justified by the benefits and are they proportionate
to the risks? If so, in what way?
您能设想到管理化会给社会，从业人员和经营造成的财政
支 出 及负 担。 相 对立 法管理 所 带来 的好 处这 些成 本 是合 理
的吗？与所降低的风险是对应的吗？如果是，体现在哪些
方面？
Answer: Justifies
Comments: there will be a financial cost for statutory
regulation, but the benefits will significantly
overweigh the cost.
Q5: If herbal and TCM practitioner s are subject to
statutory regulation, should the right to prepare and
commission
unlicensed
herbal
medicines
be
restricted to statutorily regulated practitioners?
如果草药及中医从业人员受立法管理，应该仅限于这些被
立法管理的从业者才有权力制备和使用未取得执照的草药
吗？
Answer: Yes.
Comments: Statutory regula tion will ensure the proper
qualification and competence of the practitioners. The
right of using unlicensed herbal medicines should be
restricted to registered practitioners to ensure the
public to access effective and safe herbal medicines.
Q6: If herba l and TCM practitioners are not statutorily
regulated, how (if at all) should unlicensed herbal
medicines prepared or commissioned by these
practitioners be regulated?
如果草药及中医从业人员不受立法管理，怎样使他们得以(如
果可行的话 )制备和使用未取得执照的草药？
Answer: There is no option other than statutory
regulation.
Comments: Only statutory regulation can ensure that
practitioners are qualified and competent to use
unlicensed herbal medicines. They should be the only
people to be allowed by SR to use such herbal
medicines. W ithout SR (such as current situation),
harmful incidents can not be avoided and public safety
can not be ensured.
Q7: W hat would be the effect on public, practitioners
and businesses if, in order to comply with the
requirements of European medicines legislation,
practitioners were unable to supply manufactured
unlicensed herbal medicines commissioned from a
third party?
如果为了和欧盟的医药法规相一致，从业人员也不能使用由
第三方生产的未取得执照的草药，此举将会对公众，从业人
员，行业造成怎样的影响？
Answer: Significant effect.
Comments: it would be a disaster. Public would be
denied for access to herbal medicines, practitioners
would be forced to discontinue their practice and
herbal medicine would be dead.
Q8: How might the risk of harm to the public be
reduced other than by orthodox statutory regulation?
For example by voluntary self -regulation underpinned
by consumer protection legislation and by greater
public awareness, by accredit ation of voluntary
registration bodies, or by a statutory or voluntary
licensing regime?
如果没有正确的立法管理，那些有可能对大众造成的风险和
危害会通过哪些途径降低？例如，消费者保护条例自我约
束，广泛的公众意识，资格认证自愿注册团体，或是法规的
或自愿的许可证制度等所支持的行业自愿管理是否可行 ?
Answer: Unsure.
Comments: All the options given in this question are
meant to keep the current situation, in which public
safety can not be secured, risk s and potential harms
can not be prevented as argued in our responses to
above relevant questions. The most effective way to
protect public is statutory regulation.
Q9: W hat would you estimate would be the regulatory
burden and financial costs, to the pub lic, to
practitioners and to businesses, for the alternatives to
statutory regulation suggested at Question 8?
如 果不立法 ，而用问 题 8 中 的约束方 法，您估 计其对公 众
及对从业人员及其经营造成的财政支出及成本又是多少？
Answer: Not applicable
Comments: Statutory regulation is the most effective
and efficient way. Currently, several regulatory
regimes co-exist as listed in Question 8 and they
cause more burden and cost to the public,
practitioners and businesses, directly or indirectly.
After SR, practitioners will simply pay for their
registration; therefore licensing fee, cost to trading
standard agents etc will be avoided.
Q10: W hat would you envisage would be the
benefits to the public, to practitioners, and to
businesses, for the alternatives to statutory
regulation outlined at Question 8?
您 能设想到 用问 题 8 中的约 束方法会 对公众， 对从业人 员
及其经营有什么好处？
Answer: not applicable.
Comments: The alternatives to statutory regulation
as described in Question 8 do not offer any benefits
more than SR does to the public, practitioners and
businesses.
Q11: If you feel that not all three practitioner groups
justify statutory regulation, which group(s) does/do
not and please give your reasons why/why not?
如果你认为不是对全部这三个行业立法都是合理的，究竟
哪个或哪些行业合理或不合理呢？请给出理由。
Answer: None of the above
Comments: All three practitioner groups justify
statut ory regulation. They are interlinked with each
other in a form of cross -practice. It is practically
impossible to regulate one practice or one group and
leave the others unregulated. A joint regulation for
all three groups has been on DH agenda since 2005
and it is the right direction to keep.
Q12: W ould it be helpful to the public for these
practitioners to be regulated in a way which
differentiates them from the regulatory regime for
mainstream professions publicly perceived as having
an evidence base of clinical effectiveness? If so,
why? If not, why not?
如果这些从业人员受到管理, 是用一种有别于对公众普遍
认为 有临床疗 效证据的 主流行业 的管理体 系 , 这样会对公 众
有帮助吗？如果有 ,为什么?如果没有, 为什么?
Answer: No.
Comments: The aim of statutory regulation is to
protect public from harms caused by incompetent
practitioners, it i s not about evidence. The current
situation has proved that without SR, public safety
can not be secured as it does not prevent
unqualified and incompetent practitioners causing
harms to their patients.
Q13: Given the Government’s commitment to
reducing t he overall burden of unnecessary statutory
regulation, can you suggest which areas of
healthcare practice present sufficiently low risk so
that they could be regulated in a different, less
burdensome way or de -regulated, if a decision is
made
to
statutoril y
regulate
acupuncturists,
herbalists
and
traditional
Chinese
medicine
practitioners?
因为政府有责任减轻对不必要立法管理所带来的负担，如果
一旦(政府)作出决定对针灸，草药及中医进行立法管理，您
能否建议在保健行业的哪些领域有足够低的风险以致于可用
另一种方式来管理或减少管理？
Answer: No.
Comments: All three professions bear risks to the
public if they are not properly regulated. W e can not
think of any alternatives which can offer the same
level of protection as statutory regulation.
Q14: If there were to be statutory regulation, should
the Health Professions Council (HPC) regulate all
three professio ns? If not, which one(s) should the
HPC not regulate?
如 果 要 立 法 管 理 ， 健 康 职 业 委 员 会 (HPC) 应 该 对 所 有 三 个 行
业进行管理吗？如果不是，哪个 (些)不应由 HPC 进行管理？
Answer: Yes.
Comments: This is a pointless question. A joint
regulation under HPC for all three professions has
been in the DH agenda since 2005, and it was strongly
recommended in Steering Group re port. W e do not see
the point why any of them should be regulated
separately.
Q15: If there were to be statutory regulation, should
the Health Professions Council or the General
Pharmaceutical Council/Pharmaceutical Society of
Northern Ireland regulate h erbal medicine and
traditional Chinese medicine practitioners?
如 果 要立 法 ，应 该由 健 康职业 委 员会 或 药剂 师管 理 委员会 / 北
爱尔兰药剂师管理委员会来管理草药师及中医师？
Answer: HPC.
Comments: As a joint regulation, only HPC can
regulate all three groups. GPC or PSNI can not
regulate herbal medicine and TCM practitioners as we
are practitioners, not pharmacists. W e treat pa tients
using not only herbal medicines, but acupuncture as
well. The herbal medicines we use usually are tailor made according to patient’ s need; this is totally
different from selling medicines to customers . It is
against the basic principles to regulate herbal
medicine and TCM practitioners in the same regulatory
body as for pharmacists.
Q16: If neither, who should and why?
如果以上都不是，应由哪个组织来担当？为什么？
Answer: not applicable.
Comments: The first option for regulating three
professions is HPC. The second option could be a
joint CAM Council as recommended by DH prior to
2005.
Q17:
a) Should acupuncture be subject to a different for m
of regulation from that for herbalism and traditional
Chinese medicine? If so, what?
针灸应以有别于草药及中医的管理模式来管理吗？
Answer: No.
Comments: three professions should be regulated
under one regulatory body. All TCM practitioners also
practice acupuncture. A separat e regulation will cause
a lot of problems to us.
b) Can acupuncture be adequately regulated through
local means, for example through Health and Safety
legislation, Trading Standards legislation and Local
Authority licensing?
是不是针灸的管理只通过地方执行就可以，比如由地方政
府的卫生与安全管理条例，交易标准条例，地方政府许可
证发放来管理？
Answer: No.
Comments: All the local means mentioned here are basically
the current situation which does not ensure the authority to
check the qualification and does not offer and national
standards for acupuncture practice. Therefore a good practice
and public safety can not be guaranteed. Only a statutory
regulation can offer such guarantee.
Q18.
a) Should the titles acupuncturist, herbalist and
[traditional] Chinese medicine practitioner be
protected?
针灸师，草药师及（传统）中医师这些称谓应受法律保护
吗
？
b) If your answer is no which ones do you consider
should not be legally protected?
如果你认为不是，那是哪些不应受保护？
Answer: Yes.
Comments: Through title protection, unqualified
“practitioners” will not be allowed to practice, public can be
ensured that they receive treatment only from qualified and
registered practitioners. This is best for the interest and safety
of the public. For this reason, the titles of all three professions
should be protected.
language IELTS score of 6.5 or above in order to
register in the UK?
一旦决定立法或自愿管理是必需的，你同意所有的从业人员
都 应 该 能 达 到 英 语 雅 思 6.5 或 以 上 水 平 才 可 以 在 英 国 注 册
吗？
Answer: No.
Comments: We agree that for any future practitioners there
should be an English language requirement such as IELTS 6.5
after the regulation takes place. However, for existing
practitioners who have safely practised in the UK for more than 5
years, there must be some favorable arrangement on language.
We do not understand why the “Grandparenting” recommended
by Pittilo report offers favorable arrangement on anything else
but not on language. We strongly urge that for existing
practitioners, especially the members of those organizations that
met the criteria set up by Steering Working Group for
recommending to HPC for automatic registration, there should be
some favorable arrangement on English language.
Q22: Could practitioners demonstrate compliance with
regulatory requirements and communicate effectively
with regulators, the public and other healthcare
professionals if they do not achieve the standard of
English language competence normally required for
UK registration? W hat additional costs would occur for
both practitioners and regulatory authorities in this
case?
如果从业人员达不到在英国注册通常的英语能力要求，他们
是否能够显示出他们遵守立法规定，且能有效地与立法机
构，公众及其他保健专业人员进行有效的沟通？在这种情况
下，对从业人员及立法机构双方面的额外性费用将会是什
Q19: Should a new model of regulation be tested 么？
where it is the functions of acupuncture, herbal Answer: Yes.
medicine and TCM that are protected, rather than Comments: Many TCM practitioners can still communicate
the titles of acupuncturist, herbalist or Chinese effectively with their patients and other health professionals, even
medicine practitioner?
their English does not reach IELTS 6.5.
应 不 应 该 试 用 一 种 新 的 管 理 模 式 ， 那 就 是 保 护 针 灸 ， 草 药 IELTS is a test mainly for young English language learners. Many
及 传 统 中 医 的 功 用 ， 而 不 是 保 护 针 灸 师 ， 草 药 师 及 （ 传 non-native British practitioners have lived and practised in the UK
for many years, their English is good enough for them to
统）中医师这些称谓？
communicate with their patients, public and other health
Answer: No.
Comments: There is not any better model of regulation than professionals, but they may never reach IELTS 6.5 as language
statutory regulation. Ideally both title and function of the three test can be much more difficult to adults. For those with poor
professions should be protected. Statutory regulation can English competence, they have been using interpreter’s help in
protect function through protecting title, and it is the most their practice in the past years and this should be allowed in the
new regulation for these existing practitioners. The extra cost
feasible model.
involved mainly to the practitioners themselves on interpretation
Q20: If statutory professional self -regulation is service. And it can be left to the practitioners themselves to cover
progressed, with a model of protection of title, do this cost.
you agree with the proposals for “grandparenting”
Q23: W hat would the impact be on the public,
set out in the Pittilo report?
一 旦 立 法 职 业 自 我 表 现 管 理 推 进 ， 其 模 式 是 保 护 称 谓 ， 你 practitioners and businesses (financial and regulatory
同意 Pittilo 报告(注: 即卫生部针灸草药中医立法工作组报 burden) if practitioners unable to achieve an English
language IELTS score of 6.5 or above are unable to
告) 中建议的‘祖父条例’吗？
register in the UK?
Answer: Yes.
如果 达不到英 语雅 思 6.5 或以 上的 从业 人员无法 得以在英 国
Comments: There should be a “Grandparenting” scheme in
place when introducing a new regulation for existing 注册，这将会对公众，从业人员以及经营业(财务的和管理开
practitioners to get registered in a more favorable and 销负担) 产生怎样的影响？
convenient way. However, the Pittilo report recommended a Answer: Significant impact
“Grandparenting” with favorable arrangement for professional Comments: The biggest impact would be on those practitioners
qualification as minimum requirement), but not for English as they would be denied into register and as a consequence they
language competence. This is not fair to many Chinese TCM will be disallowed to practise and will lose their livelihoods. Their
job loss due to regulation could be a very serious issue and may
practitioners.
be related to Human Right law, etc. The negative impact on the
Q21: In the event of a decision that statutory or public would be that patients lose the access to their service from
voluntary regulation is needed, do you agree that al l highly qualified and well experienced practitioners. Impact on the
practitioners should be able to achieve an English business and government etc is also obvious as if they have to
discontinue their practice; it means unemployment, jobseeker
benefit, human right issues, etc.
Q24: Are there any other matters you wish to draw
to our attention?
您还有什么需要提请我们注意的？
Comments: Highlight of our responses

Statutory regulation is our No1 choice;

HPC is our favourite regulatory body;

Three practitioners groups should be jointly
regulation;

Only registered practitioners should be allowed to use
herbal medicines;

Titles should be protected;

There should be a favourable arrangement on English
language for existing practitioners.