Direct link:
Deutsche Heilpraktikerschule fordert klare Ausbildungsrichtlinien
Statement by the German Heilpraktiker School on the “Münster Memorandum on Heilpraktikers”
As a training institute operating nationwide, we consider it our obligation to comment on the statements and theses put forward in the “Münster Memorandum”.
We are angered that, in a disrespectful, demeaning and arrogant manner, Heilpraktikers and physicians who offer relevant services are accused — contrary to reality — of posing a high potential for harm and danger. Patients, too, are broadly assumed to be ignorant and lacking in judgement.
We regret that the interdisciplinary panel of experts did not include either a practising Heilpraktiker or representatives from a professional Heilpraktiker association or a training provider in the drafting of the position paper. From our perspective, the Memorandum — also because it lacks precisely this additional perspective — assesses the Heilpraktiker profession solely through the lens of an inadequate legal framework.
In the published document, we find generalisations and assertions that portray the Heilpraktiker profession, the process of obtaining a licence to practise, and the practice of healing in ways that are detached from reality. In doing so, the authors attempt to confirm the negative image of Heilpraktikers they desire, and they discredit an entire professional group without having engaged in a factual exchange with Heilpraktikers beforehand.
In the absence of a clear definition of which healing methods and approaches are to be classified as alternative, complementary or naturopathic, there is a need for a shared definition of terms. Only then can any discussion about health-insurance coverage, proven effectiveness and practical applications be conducted in a genuinely objective way.
The suggestion that the work of a Heilpraktiker, and the use of naturopathic and complementary methods — including when used by doctors — is, by definition, a danger to patients is one-sided. Both doctors and Heilpraktikers have a duty to inform patients about their condition, about treatment options and their potential benefits and risks, and about alternatives. No one has the right to question another person’s capacity for judgement without examination.
The example cited of malpractice by Heilpraktikers from 2016 is so exceptional that critics repeatedly fall back on it for lack of other cases. From our point of view, this specific cancer treatment carried out by Heilpraktikers can justifiably be criticised, and we distance ourselves from this practice. In addition, in that case all legal boundaries were overstepped.
The training, examination and day-to-day practice of Heilpraktikers are far more developed than the legal framework might suggest. Heilpraktikers who work responsibly often join professional associations and are therefore subject to the applicable professional code of conduct. This includes the legally required duty of care and permits each Heilpraktiker to use only those therapeutic methods which they have demonstrably learned and mastered. The code of conduct also requires regular continuing professional development in the discipline being practised. The Patients’ Rights Act, which Heilpraktikers are also obliged to follow, additionally provides comprehensive protection for patients.
When one’s health is at risk, there is a need to consult a doctor or a Heilpraktiker. A lack of knowledge about the Heilpraktiker profession, as well as misconceptions about patients’ motivations, can quickly lead to the mistaken conclusion that Heilpraktikers are consulted only in situations of acute distress, under time pressure, and because of false promises of healing. The Act Against Unfair Competition prohibits both false and absolute promises of a cure. The professional code of conduct stipulates that only those healing methods should be used that are as straightforward and as cost-effective as possible. The arguments about economic exploitation and alleged promises of a cure are therefore not tenable.
The Heilpraktiker profession is a valuable achievement within the German healthcare system and one that should be preserved. The need to revise the legislation in order to make the profession’s acquisition of competencies more transparent is undisputed, explicitly desired, and would lead to higher quality among Heilpraktikers in the interests of patients.
Growing health awareness among the public is creating additional demand for healthcare services and products that the existing healthcare system cannot fully cover. Prevention, looking for causes rather than merely treating symptoms, a holistic view of the person, a renewed connection with nature, and attention to people’s physical and emotional needs are just some of the aspects that make the Heilpraktiker profession so significant. The work of Heilpraktikers in no way undermines medically led, scientifically recognised treatment strategies or calls them into question; rather, it complements them in a meaningful way.
We recognise the need for a well thought-out reform of the Heilpraktiker system and for regulating training in the interests of patients. In line with the call for reform of the Heilpraktikergesetz arising from the resolution of the 89th Conference of Health Ministers, the German Heilpraktiker School is actively involved in the process and has submitted proposals for improvement. Attendance at a qualified training institution should, in our view, be indispensable in order to ensure solid specialist knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pathology and the relevant methods, taught by properly trained lecturers.
We also criticise the current examination process for lacking any requirement to demonstrate practical naturopathic knowledge and skills. We advocate designing Heilpraktiker training in such a way that it is transparent to outsiders — and that there is no reason to doubt that the medical training meets a sufficiently high, scientific standard. This would therefore include training with a state examination and a uniform training syllabus, and it implies attendance at a qualified educational institution.
The so-called “competence solution”, which reduces the Heilpraktiker profession to so-called specialist Heilpraktikers, restricts the legally protected freedom to choose one’s profession and downgrades the Heilpraktiker occupation to a “mere further qualification” within the health professions. In our view, this does not achieve the intended improvement in quality within the Heilpraktiker system. “Abolishing the profession by modelling it on the dentist occupation contradicts Article 12 of the Basic Law, which guarantees Heilpraktikers protection of their established status.”
(Source: Attorney-at-law Dr R. Sasse, 21 August 2017 https://www.heilpraktikerrecht.com/2017/08/21/das-ende-des-heilpraktikerberufs-wie-wir-ihn-kennen/)
We propose working together with Heilpraktikers, doctors, state education-policy representatives and the responsible authorities to establish binding standards for training at Heilpraktiker schools. The German Heilpraktiker School is available as a point of contact and discussion partner for a constructive and respectful debate.
Contact details for the German Heilpraktiker School:
