" />
Did you know? Lushington Chiropractic EXPERT GENTLE EFFECTIVE

This website is managed by the award winning Lushington Chiropractic Clinic in Eastbourne

Book a consultation

Our team will contact you to confirm your appointment

Visit the Lushington Chiropractic WebsiteVisit the main Lushington Chiropractic website Click here

Disclaimer

Who is Responsible for the Site?

The owner of this blog site is Lushington Chiropractic Ltd, 30 Lushington Road, Eastbourne, BN21 4LL Registered Company Number in England and Wales: 7193955.

Employees, Self Employed Associates, Patients, Clients and Guests of Lushington Chiropractic Ltd who share information and their opinion on this blog site do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner.

Seeking Opinions and the Discussion of Ideas:

The nature of a blog site is to encourage discussion and exchange ideas and opinion.

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) sets standards for chiropractors in relation to their duty to listening to, and respecting the views and opinions of their patients. It is hoped that this blog site will do just that.

The GCC offers guidance that effective chiropractic care is a partnership based on openness, trust and good communication. It guides chiropractors to talk to their patients about their care. It also guides chiropractors to encourage their patients to play a full part in their own care by to communicating openly with them. (Standards Guidance from General Chiropractic Council’s Code of Practice P.13, June 2010) SECTION B1).

This blog site is part of Lushington Chiropractic Ltd’s strategy to seek interaction with and the views of the people who attend the clinic.

Policing of the Accuracy of Information:

Lushington Chiropractic Ltd has policies in place to ensure reasonable steps are taken to ensure compliance with regulatory bodies guidelines and genuinely makes every reasonable attempt to apply safeguards and moderate this blog site. However, the very nature of a blog site means that the site owner cannot accept responsibility for all posts and comments made on it.

Lushington Chiropractic Ltd does not make claims as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link from this blog and cannot be held liable for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in information posted.

Lushington Chiropractic Ltd will not be liable for any losses, injuries or damages from the display or use of this information.

Moderation:

Lushington Chiropractic Ltd reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice at their discretion. The owner will review the site and will moderate against:

1. Comments including profanity, or deemed to be spam and trolling
2. Comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive
3. Comments which may be considered damaging to the owner’s business
4. Comments that attack or are derogatory to or about a person, group of people, profession or an association
5. Comments which are purposely intended to: mislead others, abuse the trust of members of the public, are inaccurate, exploit the lack of experience of others, instill a fear of ill health, put pressure on people to seek treatment or bring any healthcare profession into disrepute
6. Posts and comments that breach Lushington Chiropractic Ltd’s policies

The posting of any information on this site does not imply that Lushington Chiropractic Ltd has authorized or agrees with that information or opinion.

Claims of Effectiveness

Whether bloggers are health professionals, lay people or in the direct employment of the owner of the site, their posts and comments:
• are the opinion of the blogger, who is exercising their right to freedom of speech and do not represent the views of the owner
• are not to be considered as direct claims about the effectiveness or scope of chiropractic or other therapy

Use of the “Dr” Title

The use of the title “Dr” in relation to a chiropractor is referring to the title “Doctor of Chiropractic” and is not to imply that they hold a medical qualification or are registered with the General Medical Council.

Advertising Guidelines:

Advertising Agency Guidelines have been included below for completeness and transparency.

If you believe we have over extended ourselves and are in breach of these guidelines then please report it to the owner marked for the attention of:

James Revell Doctor of Chiropractic
Company Director
Lushington Chiropractic Ltd
30 Lushington Road
Eastbourne
BN21 4LL

or to the email address info@chirocare.co.uk.

Advertising Standards Agency Guidelines:

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the UK’s independent regulator of advertising across all media. We apply the Advertising Codes, which are written by the Committees of Advertising Practice. They act on complaints and proactively checking the media to take action against misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements. (SOURCE: http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA.aspx)

The Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) write and maintain the UK Advertising Codes, which are administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. We also offer the industry authoritative advice and guidance on how to create campaigns that comply with the rules. (SOURCE:http://www.cap.org.uk/About-CAP.aspx)

CAP advice in relation chiropractic

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Chiropractic is a healthcare profession that focuses on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, with special emphasis on the spine. It emphasises manual therapy including spinal manipulation and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation, and includes exercises, and health and lifestyle counselling.

Chiropractors are regulated by statute and may therefore refer to conditions for which suitably qualified medical advice should be sought, provided they hold convincing evidence of the efficacy of their treatments.

To date, CAP accepts that chiropractors may claim to treat these conditions:

(NB: this advice was updated following a review of evidence conducted in September 2010):

• Joint pains including hip and knee pain from osteoarthritis as an adjunct to core OA treatments and exercise
Chiropractors may also refer to general aches and pains including those of joints, muscle spasms and cramp
• General, acute and chronic backache, back pain (not arising from injury or accident), including Lumbago
• Uncomplicated mechanical neck pain (as opposed to neck pain following injury e.g. whiplash)
• Headache arising from the neck (i.e. cervicogenic)
• Frozen shoulder, shoulder or elbow pain, or tennis elbow arising from associated musculoskeletal conditions of the back and neck, but not isolated occurrences
• Prevention of migraine
• Tension and inability to relax (through lifestyle advice rather than chiropractic care)

In line with the review of evidence conducted in September 2010, chiropractors are advised to avoid referencing the following conditions unless they hold suitable evidence.

• Sciatica
• Rheumatoid pain, rheumatism and neuralgia
• Whiplash
• Fibromyalgia
• Peripheral joint/ muscle/ nerve complaints e.g. repetitive strain injury

Last modified : 11 February 2013 (SOURCE: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Chiropractic.aspx)

Use of the term “Dr”

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Advertisers wanting to refer to themselves as “Dr”, “a doctor” or similar, should take care not to imply that they hold a general medical qualification if they do not. In general, CAP advises that if they do not possess a general medical qualification, advertisers should not call themselves “Dr”.

Advertisers who are not medical practitioners but who hold the courtesy title “Dr” (for example, a chiropractor or a dentist) may refer to themselves as “Dr” as long as the similarities and differences between the practitioner’s qualifications and medical qualifications are explained in the advertisement (Midland Chiropractic Group, 28 February 2001). Such explanation should go substantially further than, for example, simply stating “Dr is a courtesy title” in a footnote. The latter is likely to contradict the initial impression, given by the use of the title “Dr”, that the practitioner is medically qualified.

In 2000, the ASA upheld complaints against two dentists who advertised themselves as “Dr”. It concluded that “as used in the advertisement, the title ‘Dr’ implied that the dental surgeon held a general medical qualification” (Eric Gankerseer, 9 February 2000, and John Stowell, 9 February 2000). Those dentists were not medical practitioners and did not have a doctorate or a PhD. A 2007 magazine ad for Sensodyne Total Care Extra Fresh toothpaste showed a photograph of a dentist that was labelled “Dr. Stemmer B.D.S. UK”. The ASA investigated a complaint about the ad and, although it acknowledged that Dr Stemmer was a qualified dentist, considered that the reference to “Dr” in the ad misleadingly implied Dr Stemmer held a general medical qualification (GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, 14 March 2007).

Similarly, the ASA has upheld complaints against ads for chiropractors that have misleadingly implied that the advertiser is a medical practitioner; advertisers should note that references in the ad to “DC” or “doctor of chiropractic” are unlikely to dispel that misleading impression (BritChiro Clinics Ltd, 28 May 2008, and Dr Garland Glenn, 30 October 2002).

In 2010, the ASA ruled that a clinic had misleadingly implied that its staff were medically qualified. It ruled that claims such as “The chiropractic doctors at the Pain Resource Centre…” and “doctors and chiropractors” suggested that staff held general medical qualifications (Phillip Bennetts, 6 October 2010).

CAP understands that it is likely to be acceptable for advertisers who possess a relevant PhD or doctorate (of sufficient length and intensity) to call themselves “Dr” provided they use the suffix “PhD” to clarify the type of qualification they hold and that the general context does not imply they are medically qualified.

In 2012, the ASA upheld a complaint about a complementary therapist who prefixed her name with “Dr”, sporadically including the suffix “PhD”. Notwithstanding information on one page explicitly stating that she was not a medical doctor, the ASA considered the advertiser had misled consumers about the nature of her qualification. In the context of a service which consumers were likely to associate with medical doctors, it considered consumers would generally believe that the therapist held a general medical qualification but had a particular interest in “hormone and holistic health”. The ASA ruled the advertiser should include a clear and prominent statement that she was not medically qualified as soon as she referred to herself as a “Dr” (Dr Alyssa Burns-Hills, 21 November 2012).

Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine or other alternative therapies should not call themselves “Dr” unless they possess a general medical qualification (Great Chinese Herbal Medicine Ltd, 2005).

Last modified : 12 February 2013 (SOURCE: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Use-of-the-term-Dr.aspx)

Therapies: General

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Many marketers of health-related products or therapies would like to list ailments that they believe their products or therapies can treat. The Code, however, contains specific rules that restrict the types of claims marketers other than qualified health professionals may make. Rule 12.5 states “Marketers inviting consumers to diagnose their own minor ailments should not make claims that might lead to a mistaken diagnosis”. Rule 12.2 states “Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered.”

As well as ruling against those practitioners claiming to treat conditions that they could not (Pharma Nord (UK) Ltd, 16 January 2008; The Body Detox Clinic, 8 August 2007; Health & Living Foundation, 29 August 2007 (complaint 1); Everwell Chinese Medicine Centre, 25 July 2007 (complaint 1); Healthy Marketing Ltd, 18 July 2007 (complaint 1); East London Homeopathic Centre, 12 July 2006 (complaint 2), and Ever Well Ltd, 4 January 2006 (complaint 1), the ASA has also ruled against practitioners of complementary medicines and therapies who have discouraged readers from seeking conventional medical attention for serious conditions (Health & Living Foundation, 29 August 2007 (complaint 3); Everwell Chinese Medicine Centre, 25 July 2007 (complaint 4); Healthy Marketing Ltd, 18 July 2007 (complaint 2); East London Homeopathic Centre, 12 July 2006 (complaint 2); Ever Well Ltd, 4 January 2006 (complaint 3); Herbmedic, 22 October 2003, and Dr & Herbs, 30 April 2003).

In 1998, CAP produced a Help Note on Health, Beauty and Slimming Marketing Communications that Refer to Medical Conditions to help the industry produce or publish marketing communications that comply with the Code. The Help Note classifies ailments as either those that can be acceptably referred to in marketing communications targeted at the general public or those that cannot be referred to because they are considered too serious to be diagnosed or treated without the relevant medical supervision. The guidelines in the Help Note do not apply to marcoms for medicines that hold an MHRA product licence or marketing authorisation to treat a serious or prolonged ailment.

The Help Note acknowledges that most health practitioners specialise in treating different types of ailments and acknowledges, for example, that a physiotherapist might be well suited to treating a sports injury whereas massage might help someone suffering from anxiety. Marketers of most disciplines of complementary medicine can find guidance under the entry specific to their discipline, for example acupuncture.

Examples of ailments that may be referred to in marketing communications (subject to the marketer being able to prove the efficacy of the product or therapy) include: arthritic pain, IBS, neck ache, feeling down and temporary erectile dysfunction. Examples of ailments that cannot usually be referred to in marketing communications include: arthritis, migraine, diabetes, prostate problems, heart disease, hiatus hernia, whiplash and impotence.

The lists are not exhaustive and are updated from time to time in line with ASA adjudications and prevailing medical opinion, including Government reports.

In July 2007 the General Media Panel, in considering rule 12.3, concluded that all complementary and alternative therapy practitioners offering significant or invasive treatments should encourage consumers to take independent medical advice in the initial advertisement and before committing themselves to the treatment.

Marketers of complementary medicines should comply with the more general clauses of the Code; for example, they should not cause undue fear and distress or mislead and should be responsible (The British Prostate Association, 15 October 2003, and Holford & Associates, 26 March 2003). Several complementary practitioners have fallen foul of the ASA by, for example, prefixing their name with the title “Dr” or otherwise implying that they were ”qualified” in conventional medicine (Everwell Chinese Medicine Centre, 25 July 2007 (complaint 2); Ever Well Ltd, 4 January 2006 (complaint 4); Great Chinese Herbal Medicine Ltd, 7 December 2005 (complaint 3), and Multicure Health Centre, 6 August 2003). One practitioner continued to describe himself as a ”doctor” despite not being registered with the General Medical Council and having been struck off the General Chiropractic Council’s register (Spinal Health Centre, 9 January 2008).

Marketers should ensure they do not make unauthorised medicinal claims (Health & Living Foundation, 29 August 2007 (complaint 4)).

Rule 12.6, introduced to reflect Annex practice 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, states that marketers should not falsely claim that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or malformations.

See ‘Medicines: Prescription-only and Disease Awareness Advertising’ and specific therapies.
Guidance on Health Therapies and Evidence QA (Sept 2011)
Last modified : 11 February 2013 (SOURCE: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-General.aspx)