Government regulation and registration of health practitioners aims to ensure a minimal level of education and training, appropriate standards of professional behaviour and effective and efficient complaint-handling mechanisms. Although medical practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and some other categories of health practitioners are registered by government, most have received little or no training in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Some doctors who practise “integrative medicine” are an exception. CAM practitioners such as naturopaths, herbalists and homeopaths have not yet achieved national registration, in part because of division in their ranks, but also because of their extremely varied training.
Unlike conventional medicines, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration does not evaluate complementary medicines for efficacy. They do ensure that AUST L-labelled products contain “relatively safe” ingredients and are manufactured according to Good Manufacturing Practice. However, claims made for complementary medicines are often far in advance of the scientific evidence available, whereas information about possible adverse effects, including interaction with conventional medicines, is often lacking. A similar situation exists for diagnostic and therapeutic devices used by CAM practitioners. The majority are regarded as “low risk” by the regulator and are not assessed to see if they work. A complaint system exists, but it is underresourced, overloaded and lacks effective sanctions. As a consequence, numerous claims that have been proven to breach the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code continue to be made about CAM medicines and devices. The government has acknowledged these problems and several working groups are currently discussing possible regulatory reform. Meanwhile, caveat emptor applies (let the buyer beware).