acupuncture bill — Patient groups are calling for the withdrawal of a controversial acupuncture bill, citing concerns that it could jeopardise public health. On Monday, the Cyprus federation of patients’ association (Osak) expressed its strong opposition to the draft law, which encompasses both naturopathy and traditional acupuncture/electro-acupuncture.
Acupuncture bill: Concerns Over Evidence-Based Practice
Osak argues that the proposed legislation contradicts established evidence-based medical practices. They assert that the bill would legitimise certain techniques that lack proven effectiveness and quality within the healthcare system. The federation pointed out that while the draft law mentions studies, diplomas, and training hours, it fails to connect these to recognised academic standards or to ensure a solid biomedical foundation.
Gaps in Essential Medical Training
The federation highlighted significant gaps in essential subjects such as anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, ethics, epidemiology, and evidence-based practice. They warned that under the proposed law, practitioners could offer advice to patients with chronic illnesses, prescribe herbal treatments and supplements, and utilize invasive methods, including needles and electrical devices, without the necessary advanced clinical training.
Risks of Misdiagnosis and Harmful Interactions
This lack of training raises concerns about potential errors, harmful interactions, and delays in diagnosing serious health conditions. Osak cited guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which states that no practice should be integrated into a national health system without rigorous assessment of its safety and effectiveness.
Call for Patient Protection
Osak insisted that any regulatory framework must be based on clinical risk and prioritise patient safety, particularly regarding methods that do not have a scientific basis. The federation believes that the draft proposal does not meet these critical standards, warning that it could blur the lines between scientifically validated medicine and unverified practices.
Legitimisation of Unproven Techniques
They expressed concern that the bill would legitimise techniques that have not shown tangible benefits, overlook safety measures, and fail to establish transparent training requirements. This could potentially replace effective treatments with methods that lack reliable evidence, prompting Osak to urge political parties to reject the proposal.
Physiotherapists Raise Alarm
The association of physiotherapists’ acupuncture society also voiced strong objections, noting that they were not invited to participate in the consultation process. They described this exclusion as institutionally unacceptable and scientifically unsafe. They pointed out that naturopathy is not recognised as a legitimate health profession in Europe and does not rely on validated diagnostic methods.
Misleading Public Perception
Furthermore, they stressed that presenting naturopathy as a health service could mislead the public into equating it with established medical practices like medicine or physiotherapy. The society raised alarms that the law could open the door to unscientific and anti-vaccination ideologies within national health policy, affecting both public and private sectors.
Concerns from the Medical Community
The Cyprus medical association has also raised concerns regarding the bill, specifically about the use of terms such as ‘energy’, ‘meridians’, ‘energetic diagnosis’, and ‘iridology’. They echoed worries about the lack of proven safety and effectiveness of the practices included in the draft law.
Impact of Protected Titles and New Registers
Acupuncturists have warned that the proposal could lead to the establishment of protected titles and registers for non-validated practices. They cautioned that this could delay necessary medical diagnosis and treatment, and allow for the misleading use of the term ‘electro-acupuncture’, which diverges from traditional acupuncture practices.
Next Steps for Stakeholders
The growing discontent among various health professionals and patient advocacy groups suggests that the proposed bill may face significant opposition in Parliament. Stakeholders are now calling for a thorough review of the bill, advocating for a framework that prioritises patient safety and is grounded in scientific evidence before any integration of such practices into the national health system.
