Last year, after prompting by Good Thinking, the Charity Commission promised to hold a consultation regarding their policies on accepting the registration of charities which exist for the promotion of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). That consultation is now open, and the public are invited to submit their thoughts on the Charity Commission’s approach to CAM charities.

UK charity law states that for an organisation to qualify as a charity, it’s purposes must be for the benefit of the public. Where those organisations are health-based, it would seem obvious that the interventions they promote must have a demonstrable benefit to the public. Given that some UK charities exist specifically to promote homeopathic remedies to AIDS patients in Botswana, to offer pseudoscientific treatments to cancer patients, and to promote several other unproven and disproven therapies, this consultation is a great opportunity to clarify the position of the Charity Commission and allow them to take appropriate action in the future.

If the Charity Commission were to properly implement its public benefit test, then this might mean removing the charitable status of some existing organisations, having a higher hurdle in terms of evidence for organisations that apply for charitable status in future and challenging some of the actions of some charities who have some health projects that are not evidence-based.

We are aware that organisations, companies and publications that promote pseudoscience are actively encouraging their supporters to respond to the consultation. To ensure that the Commission hears from voices beyond those who have a vested interest in CAM therapies, please take a moment to offer your own response.

Details of the consultation are available on the Charity Commission website, and submissions can be made via email to legalcharitablestatus@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk. The deadline for submissions is the 19th May, 2017.

As part of the consultation, the Charity Commission is seeking to clarify their position with respect to these five questions in particular:

What level and nature of evidence should the Commission require to establish the beneficial impact of CAM therapies? Can the benefit of the use or promotion of CAM therapies be established by general acceptance or recognition, without the need for further evidence of beneficial impact? If so, what level of recognition, and by whom, should the Commission consider as evidence? How should the Commission consider conflicting or inconsistent evidence of beneficial impact regarding CAM therapies? How, if at all, should the Commission’s approach be different in respect of CAM organisations which only use or promote therapies which are complementary, rather than alternative, to conventional treatments? Is it appropriate to require a lesser degree of evidence of beneficial impact for CAM therapies which are claimed to relieve symptoms rather than to cure or diagnose conditions?

There is also the opportunity to offer any other thoughts you might have on the registration of CAM charities.

Good Thinking shall be making our own submission to the Commission, which we will publish in due course. In the meantime, below are some of the points we intend to make.

This consultation presents an unprecedented opportunity to help ensure charitable status – and the reputational and financial benefits conferred by this status – is no longer extended to organisations that offer misleading advice to desperate patients, and that promote dangerous or ineffective pseudoscience. Please join us in ensuring that this opportunity is not lost.