Psychics see big trouble over new laws

[heidler1]

Will this eventually affect all claims of truth in the supernatural? I hope so.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/britain_psychic_dc
______________________________________________________________________________________
Psychics see big trouble over new laws By Peter Griffiths
Fri Apr 18, 1:12 PM ET



LONDON (Reuters) - Fortune-tellers, mediums and spiritual healers marched on the home of the British prime minister at Downing Street on Friday to protest against new laws they fear will lead to them being "persecuted and prosecuted."



Organizers say that replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 with new consumer protection rules will remove key legal protection for "genuine" mediums.

They think skeptics might bring malicious prosecutions to force spiritualists to prove in court that they can heal people, see into the future or talk to the dead.

Psychics also fear they will have to give disclaimers describing their services as entertainment or as scientific experiments with unpredictable results.

"If I'm giving a healing to someone, I don't want to have to stand there and say I don't believe in what I'm doing," said Carole McEntee-Taylor, a healer who co-founded the Spiritual Workers Association.

The group delivered a petition with 5,000 names to the prime minister's office, although Gordon Brown is away in the United States.

With the changes expected to come into force next month, spiritualists have faced a barrage of headlines gleefully suggesting that they should have seen it coming.

But many don't see the funny side. They say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds from prosecutors and onto them.

"By repealing the Act, the onus will go round the other way and we will have to prove we are genuine," McEntee-Taylor told Reuters. "No other religion has to do that."

The government said the new regulations form part of a European Union directive that is meant to harmonize unfair trading laws across the EU. It will introduce a ban on traders "treating consumers unfairly."

The British Humanist Association, a charity which campaigns against religion and supernatural beliefs, said stricter regulations were overdue because the current laws don't work.

"It is misleading for spiritualists to claim that, as religious' practitioners they should not be regulated under consumer laws," said Chief Executive Hanne Stinson.

"The psychic industry is huge and lucrative and it exploits some very vulnerable, and some very gullible, people with claims for which there is no scientific evidence."

[LiberalEsto]

1. Didn't they see this coming?

Just askin'

[cliffordu]

2. Well, then, why can't they figure oout who wins in Pennsylvania??

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. A VERY troubling law

for frauds and con artists.

[varkam]

4. Well, if they're "real" psychics then they shouldn't have anything to worry about...

right?

[heidler1]

7. Right.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Laws can be too restrictive, I think

for example, I can't sell relaxation CDs where I live because that is considered "practicing medicine" if we say the CDs may help you relax and feel better. Only doctors can claim to make someone feel better in our state.

Any healer I know does not charge for their services, btw. They consider what they have to be a gift, and offer it as such. Interestingly enough, they also encourage the people who go to them to go to a doctor if they haven't already. It is very interesting when someone who has gone to an MD, then to a healer, then back to an MD who has found the condition improved. The healers I know don't claim to understand how the power of thought works in a person, but they do point out that the mere fact that the placebo effect exists seems to indicate that one's own thoughts about one's condition and the ability to be healed can have an effect upon the body.

[skepticscott]

13. So what about

conventional therapists and counselors and other such folk whose job is to make people feel better, but who don't have MDs? Are they not allowed to practice, or can they just not claim to be able to help people? That seems hideously restrictive.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. It is

very restrictive, yet it has a loophole: ministers are allowed to do whatever they want. I know of people who have mailed off to become Universal Life ministers just to get around the restrictions.

[cyborg_jim]

22. Stress

It's chemical (stress hormones). It has a chemical effect. It's not hard to understand. It's not that mysterious.

Reducing stress increases health.

[csziggy]

6. Do doctors really prove what they do works?

I just read an article in Scientific America that indicated procedures for treatment and diagnosis are not well vetted for effectiveness and that adds to the exorbitant costs of medical care in the US. It went on to discuss the lack of evaluation of the true effectiveness of medications. The FDA checks the safety of medications and treatments but does not do a cost/benefit analysis once they are determined to be "safe". So many people (or their insurance companies) end up paying huge amounts for treatments that do not work all that well for how much is spent.

Since in some cases a placebo effect is as good as expensive medications for curing patients even if you do not believe in alternative treatments, the idea that they might work can be effective for relief for a lot of people. I wonder how many medical doctors would like to be required to tell patients the real figures on effectiveness of the expensive medicines they are prescribing? I'd bet treatments would drop off precipitously for "real" medicine then!

[heidler1]

9. The placebo effect is a fact and this is why double blind tests are part of

the approval process of new drugs. This is also one of the reasons that even after being approved drugs are found to not actually do any good and sometimes harm.

Doctors are human too and are sometimes dead wrong. Still they are the best chance you have at recovery.

If someone is dying and hope is all that is left it still does not justify preaching hope and thereby diverting the curable from being sucked into some bs that keeps them from being actually cured.

[csziggy]

10. I am usually a pretty hard science person but after losing two family members to cancer

I prefer the idea of giving hope. My sister, who had the most aggressive brain cancer out there, went through all sorts of treatments, two brain operations and a lot of pain. Although it prolonged her life a year past when she was told she would die, that last year was not in my mind a life *I* would have chosen to live - but it was her choice.

My BIL who was diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer chose a more moderate treatment of just chemo. That gave him more time with his four children than originally predicted and a reasonable quality of life for that time, all the way to the end. But in some ways I think he would have preferred to live without the illness he had from the chemo and enjoyed a shorter time feeling better with a better life for the last few months.

And in both cases, the costs of treatment put a burden on the family, even though they both had good insurance coverage.

I do NOT believe in simply preaching hope - and I should hope that now days people are capable of some sort of informed decisions. But if someone decides to avoid aggressive medical treatments and chooses to use alternative treatments, they should not have to listen to their practitioner spout legally mandated warnings. I consider this equivalent to the recent Florida legislative decision to force women who chose abortion to have to have ultrasounds.

IMO this comes down to personal choices versus government interference in medical decisions.

[Silent3]

15. It seems like you're confusing two separate issues here

One issue is length of life vs. quality of life. I have no problem with people deciding for themselves living better is more important than living longer.

But that decision should be an informed decision. How do patients benefit if "they should not have to listen to their practitioner spout legally mandated warnings"? Do you think that omitting such disclaimers protects a patient's "right" to be fooled by an "alternative" practitioner into thinking he or she can get the best of both worlds, better and longer life?

[TZ]

18. I'm involved in clinical research

and I'm going to take issue with the claim that procedures are not well vetted for effectiveness.
Gosh thats what I do everyday! I check to see how much drug is in a patient's system and if its causing an allergic reaction. That plus what the patient tells the doctor combines to give actually pretty good data on efficacy. What the problem IS, has to do with the sizes of clinical trials. Since people are reluctant to join clinical trials its hard to know how effective a drug is in LARGE populations. If its not effective in clinical trials its generally not gonna get approved for widespread use. How would drug companies survive you think if people had ineffective meds? Its so pricey to do R+D and to get an investigational new drug on the market that actually a drug maker is not gonna want to put something ineffective on the market.
Also a lot of times, physicians will start taking drugs and prescribing them for conditions not directly targeted in the clinical trials and that can be a problem

[struggle4progress]

8. Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 (to be replaced)

1951 c.33 14 and 15 Geo 6

An Act to repeal the Witchcraft Act 1735, and to make, in substitution for certain provisions of section four of the Vagrancy Act 1824, express provision for the punishment of persons who fraudulently purport to act as spiritualistic mediums or to exercise powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers.

1. Punishment of fraudulent mediums, &c.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who

(a) with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or
(b)in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device,
shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to any other person.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment ...

(5) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment ...

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1100678

Diehard wonks who need to know about the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations" might start here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/small_businesses/competing/protection

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I think the new law is reasonable

Someone promises that they can make contact with the dead and will (for a fee of 100 GBP) allow you to speak with your beloved grandmother again. Why should this be treated under the law any differently than someone who makes the same claim, only with a telephone? Should drug companies be allowed the same leeway as a psychic healer? What about doctors and pharmacists?

If you make a claim and take money on those claims, the public have a right to some guarantee that the claim is accurate. I fail to see why professional psychics should be treated any differently than any other professional.

[beam me up scottie]

12. I take issue with the statement that the BHA "campaigns against religion and supernatural beliefs"

From http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=333">The British Humanist Association website

Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Our Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.


The British Humanist Association (BHA) represents the interests of the large and growing population of ethically concerned but non-religious people in the UK – helping to set the agenda for debate. Committed to human rights, democracy, equality and mutual respect, the BHA works for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech, and for an end to the privileged position of religion – and Christianity in particular – in law, education, broadcasting and wherever else it occurs.

[heidler1]

16. I believe that many Christians interput:

"for an end to the privileged position of religion – and Christianity in particular – in law, education, broadcasting and wherever else it occurs. " to be equal to campaigning. I see it as campaigning and agree with doing it.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Yes, but statements like that are used to bolster claims that atheists have an anti-religious agenda

I admire the BHA for promoting a truly secular society.

Even though The Church of England is the established church and there is no separation of church and state, the Brits are a hell of a lot closer to achieving that goal than we are. :(

[Evoman]

19. Since there are no such things as genuine psychics and mediums, they should be scared.

Every single one of them is a fucking fraud.

Either admit your nothing but an entertainer or get nailed for being the fraud that you are.

Good riddance.

[heidler1]

20. Schools should have CON 101 classas. It might help.

What kills it is all religion would be suspect.

[and-justice-for-all]

21. Psychics and Mediums are a fraud...

pure pseudo bullshit that is no different than the religions of the world, that are also a fraud. Misleading masses of people with false claims, false hope and with no verifiable evidence of the extraordinary claims the preach.

They also take peoples money, they play to their emotions and take their money...I think that should be illegal.

"They think skeptics might bring malicious prosecutions to force spiritualists to prove in court that they can heal people, see into the future or talk to the dead." Well YEAH! If you can do what you say you can, Prove it.