Selfsufficientish.com

citizentwiglet wrote:Mmm, MKG....that's where I start scratching my head, to be honest. I'm not wholly comfortable with people being dictated to as to what they should and shouldn't do/see/watch/spend their money on. I honestly think that people with money to waste will waste it regardless of the 'service' being offered....scratchcards, chatlines, TV phone-ins....

Most folk I know who use such services do tend to go by word-of-mouth recommendation; reputation is, I think, the best form of advertisement.

I think you are correct, it would be rediculous to try and stop people from enjoying a little flutter with their beliefs, nothing wrong with making it clear what they are paying for either. Like the health warnings on a packet of cigarettes, if people want to smoke it makes no difference.

Presumably churches and mosques synagogs etc will also need to have the warning presented clearly.

What worries me most is people who are vulnerable, like old dears who have recently lost a beloved, some "mediums" seem to prey upon them, only to part them with their hard-earned cash. So I think it is probably a good thing to legislate disclaimers.

I only just noticed this thread....

I think the problem arises when we say that all people out there offering these services are fakes or charlatans. I agree, there are a lot out there (as a Witch, a Reiki master, a 'fortune-teller', I've met my fair share) but there are also many genuine practitioners around. Having worked (for one night many years ago) on one of those tarot lines, I can confirm that they are indeed all about keeping people on the phone for as long as possible. Though they don't come right out and tell you to do it, its strongly implied that you should.
I know that my abilities are genuine, and I have no qualms at all about charging for my services. Aside from the tarot line, I've not read for people professionally-mostly because I don't feel confident enough to do it. With regards to Witchy stuff, when people ask me to perform magick for them, I don't charge, but do expect something in return, (a gift, a favour, etc) as an energy exchange. In fact, most traditions of Witchcraft expressly forbid charging for magick in order to stop the temptation of working less-than-ethical spells for large amounts of cash.
As for Reiki, well, I've paid a fair amount of money on my trainings in that (and other therapies), as well as for insurance, registration with governing bodies, advertising, rent on clinic space, couch roll and other sundries, so why shouldn't I charge to make back my money and potentially earn a living? And should I then have to tell people that its for entertainment purposes only? (Believe me, there's very little thats entertaining about a Reiki session) It definitely helps people (and animals and plants and situations) regardless of whether or not they can feel something happening, and while there may be people out there charging money when they have little to no 'healing' ability, I see no reason for us genuine people to be lumped in with them just because what we do has yet to be scientifically explained or whatever.
To me it feels like a step back to the Burning Times to be honest.

People have died because alternative medicine practitioners have told them their 'energy' looked fine and there couldn't be anything seriously wrong with them. Perhaps these people were gullible and reluctant to go to a regular GP, but nevertheless...

I know that in regular health it also happens that people do not get the correct diagnosis, but here are guidelines and protocols for medical staff which help prevent these mistakes. Also there is a board where you can complain (or your relatives, if you were really unlucky) and the doctors involved may be disciplined. These mechanisms make it possible to keep an eye on developments and correct protocols or treatment plans. I believe this is important and it is utterly lacking for alternative health care.

If I were an alternative health practitioner I wouldn't consider taking a client on if this person had not first seen a qualified doctor or counsellor first for that particular complaint (I'd write down name of the doctor and date of the appointment). Not only to protect myself from any future law suits, but, more importantly, to keep a clear conscience.

Also I feel that any with a craft, skill or talent has the right to charge for his/her labour. An artist can charge for a painting. In actual value of linnen, paint and varnish it may be worth next to nothing, but there is an intangible quality which makes it worth much more. But if you don't like the painting, it is worthless. Does that mean the painter is suddenly a fraud?
The same may be true for an aura healing or reiki session or whatever. Some people feel it is money well spent, others don't.

It is an interesting discussion.

Regards, Jandra

there is that better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki

My belief is that you will find 'charlatans' in all walks of life, not just alternative medicine / energy work etc.

You get cowboy double glazing fitters or car mechanics for example.

I believe we are all born with a gift, be that the ability to stand up in front of 1000 people and inspire them, the ability to teach, the ability to make things ''out of nothing', to paint, to cook, to add up difficult maths in your head and some people have more spiritual gifts.

I don't see why these people should not charge for what they do, because they will only get money if someone is willing to pay them.
I have a friend who is a very gifted healer. He does much of his work for free. He is the most compassionate and loving man I know, but, just like you or I he has bills to pay.

he joined up for one of these premium rate 'psychic lines'; not because he particularly wanted to or felt good about it, but because he needed to keep a roof over his head. He could either go and stack shelves at tescos or sit in his lounge infront of a computer and earn money that way.........

As with all things in life, there are the genuine gifted / skillfull people and the complete rip off merchants.

We live in a world where we are no longer encouraged to trust or take responsibility for ourselves.

We give away our power to the education system, the govt, the supermarkets and the medical profession. We are so far removed from being able to take care of ourselves that we seek spiritual guidance as well from outside of ourselves instead of trusting our gut reactions and instincts.

Sc x

People have died because alternative medicine practitioners have told them their 'energy' looked fine and there couldn't be anything seriously wrong with them. Perhaps these people were gullible and reluctant to go to a regular GP, but nevertheless...

Complementary therapists, unless specifically qualified to, shouldn't diagnose in any form. Reputable ones don't, and are far more prevalent than those that do.

I know that in regular health it also happens that people do not get the correct diagnosis, but here are guidelines and protocols for medical staff which help prevent these mistakes. Also there is a board where you can complain (or your relatives, if you were really unlucky) and the doctors involved may be disciplined. These mechanisms make it possible to keep an eye on developments and correct protocols or treatment plans. I believe this is important and it is utterly lacking for alternative health care.

Yes, its highly important, but you are completely wrong to say that therapists lack such mechanisms. In order to be able to practise any complementary or alternative therapy, one requires insurance. This is only available to those who are trained and qualified and registered with an appropriate governing body, of which there are a large number, most of which belong to an umbrella organisation such as the BCMA (British Complementary Medical Association) We also adhere to a specific code of ethics set by both the awarding bodies and the governing bodies. Quite often, these are set to an even higher standard than those adhered to by conventional medical practitioners.

If I were an alternative health practitioner I wouldn't consider taking a client on if this person had not first seen a qualified doctor or counsellor first for that particular complaint (I'd write down name of the doctor and date of the appointment). Not only to protect myself from any future law suits, but, more importantly, to keep a clear conscience.

Again, reputable and registered therapists will not see clients that have not seen their regular doctor, if they are presenting a particular complaint. Even if the purpose of the treatment is for general relaxation, a full consultation is taken, which can last anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half for an initial consultation and at least 20 minutes for each consecutive consulation. This is in addition to the length of the treatment and is usually not charged for. As part of this consultation, a full medical history is taken, including family medical history where relevant, and the doctor's details are also recorded. The doctor will be contacted if the therapist deems it necessary. This is in addition to questions about diet, lifestyle and other relevant information. All in all, far more detailed than an appointment with a GP. This information is then used to help provide the best possible treatment for the individual client, and the treatment plan and follow-up aftercare advice is also recorded.

I think that you should be entitled to charge for your services, absolutely. Never the less, your 'skills' are based on faith, you believe in yourself, and if you can get others to believe in you then great. BUT, I agree with the idea that people such as yourself should have a health warning attached if charging for the services. So should organised religions, and cult groups etc.

My 'skills' as you put it are most certainly not based on faith. You're confusing Reiki with faith-healing which, although superficially similar to the observer, are in fact quite different. Reiki requires no faith or belief in order to work. It works anyway. Reiki has no religious connotations and does not operate under the theory that belief in a deity is prerequisite. Its a simple hands-on energy healing technique in which energy passes through the practitioner into the recipient with barely a thought to activate it. As 'people such as myself' do not claim any miraculous cures for Reiki, a health warning is not necessary. No more than for any other health professional.

I don't think that people under the age of 18 should be allowed to use your services nor should their parents be allowed to solicit your services on their behalf. Same goes for organised religion etc.

I do not treat minors, with or without parental permission (family excluded) for a variety of reasons, most of which are to cover my own back. Many therapists these days feel much the same. However, if a parent wishes to seek a complementary practitioner for their child, that is their choice, not yours.

In my opinion there are serious mental health issues involved in this business, just because someone is convinced they are Napoleon, does not mean that I believe them or that I would want them to have influence over my children.

If you are implying that I am mentally ill because of what I am able to do, then I'm going to have to ask you to reconsider your wording as it is potentially libellous since, aside from a little SAD in the darker months, I'm as sane as pretty much anyone. I am not 'convinced' of what I can do, I know I can do it. This is based on years of experiential evidence, not some passing fancy. While I have no desire to influence your children (and neither would any other therapist that I know), I do believe that you should trust them to make up their own minds based on their own research and experience.

ps. witches were persecuted because they were herbalists, not because they had been on a Raiki Master course. The real witches that are hunted these days (if one would like to use that comparison) are drug dealers.

Some people tried as Witches were herbalists, yes. Others were actually Witches as well (since herbalism is one of the surviving legacies of our Pagan ancestors). Others still were harmless old ladies whose only 'crime' was to be widowed and owning large amounts of desirable land, which then became the property of the Church or local aristocracy/government. Which were often the same thing. I never claimed that medieval Witches practised Reiki (though they may have practised something similar). It would've been highly unlikely that they did since Reiki is Japanese in origin and was discovered/created in the early 20th century by Mikao Usui.
I'm not really seeing the drug dealer connection. You're either implying that drug dealers are mostly harmless and providing a valuable service while being needlessly persecuted and murdered, or you're saying that Witches were/are scumbags who sell damaging chemicals to impressionable teenagers. Either way, you're well off the mark.

AXJ wrote:

citizentwiglet wrote:
Presumably churches and mosques synagogs etc will also need to have the warning presented clearly.

... can i just ask exactly what this warning would be?!

also... MKG, what is the legislation?

Not legislation yet. It's an EU proposal which is likely to be taken up by the UK. And it covers any and all people - not just alternative medicine practitioners and occultists - whose sales techniques might be construed as unfair. So, also lumped in there are high-pressure door-to-door salesmen, purveyors of "tonics" with doubtful claims etc.

It is designed to impose a legal responsibility upon anyone at all who offers services or goods (in return for payment of any kind) which either are intentionally misrepresented or, in the case of mystics, unprovably represented. In a nutshell, if you say that you can do something and charge for it, you'd better be able to prove in a court of law that you can, indeed, do it.

The only church which would be affected would be the spiritualist church, which claims that it can put you in touch with your deceased and charges or asks for donations (same thing in the eyes of the law) as a matter of course. But the implications for faith-healers, astrologists, homeopaths, card-readers, mediums etc. are obvious.

Hence the "This is for entertainment only" insistence. If you pay for the entertainment - which is the service offered - all well and good. If anyone tells you they can contact the spirits of the dead on your behalf and you pay them to do so, then the supplier of the service will have committed an offence.

The obvious problem is when the supplier is an honest person who believes in what he/she does and sells services to a recipient who also believes (anything else is a straightforward con anyway) and is happy to pay. These transactions cannot be distinguished in law from fraudulent transactions.

The issue isn't really whether you think someone like Ocailleagh should be allowed to charge or not. It's whether we should be instituting a law which, like it or not, will put Ocailleagh into the position of either cheapening his own talents by calling them entertainment or insisting upon his beliefs and therefore breaking the law.

Well put MKG, that was my point but I think it may have got a little lost.

Personaly, I dont believe it, I explain what really happened to my guilable friends and try to warn them against it in the future.
If they still want to fork over money, not a lot I can do.

After all, I MAY BE WRONG and it is not for me to dictate to others.

As for "protecting the vulnerable" / "for the good of society"

As far as I'm aware the state has never put people against the wall and shoot them for the bad of society, happens far too often "for the greater good".

As for the law, work as well as any other, the real criminals will be ignored because they're too hard to prosecute and people who sit in a hut at blackpool will be dragged over the coals.

happy now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki

You called her crazy, a liar and a thief.

My understanding of Libel is that you would have to prove those three claims, not that she would have to disprove them.

Either way, is it really appropriate behaviour for the ish?

You can disagree without being rude.

DominicJ wrote:You called her crazy, a liar and a thief.

My understanding of Libel is that you would have to prove those three claims, not that she would have to disprove them.

Either way, is it really appropriate behaviour for the ish?

You can disagree without being rude.

I have not called anyone a liar, or a thief, as for crazy, well my son is crazy so what?

DominicJ wrote:You called her crazy, a liar and a thief.

My understanding of Libel is that you would have to prove those three claims, not that she would have to disprove them.

Either way, is it really appropriate behaviour for the ish?

You can disagree without being rude.

This thread, Domonic started out on the premis that healers who charge for their services should have a label CHARLATAN in big letters, clearly (in my opinion) Domonic you're a bit sensative.

MKG wrote:I'm just getting into a quiet barney on another site about the new legislation on spritualists, mediums, astrologers and others of that ilk. It promises to be a good one. Just wondered what, with a site full of pagans, the general attitude is here. Should they be allowed to charge for their services, or should they be burned at the stake (not literally, of course).

I'll come straight out and lay my cards on the table - I think that at the first mention of charging for services, the word CHARLATAN should appear, just like here, in capital letters.

I think my posts are perfectly in keeping with the tone of the discussion, however, I would hate to sully this debate with an honest opinion, so just for your sensativities I have removed my posts. Quite frankly I couldn't give two hoots. If disagreeing with someone is rude, well I'll just stick to the tomato section. Enjoy the now somewhat one sided debate.

anyone who cares to make a judgement whether I have been rude can check thetext off this forum here