Chair of the BANT ethics commitee breaks own code of ethics (and commits a criminal offence)

You may remember the British Association of Nutritional Therapists (BANT) as the nutritional therapists body that claims to regulate nutritionists yet is remarkably secretive about its code of ethics and disciplinary procedures, perhaps because it altered them after pressure from the nutrition industry to allow members to accept commission from companies for pushing company pills on to their patients.

Despite this slippage on the ethical banana skin (Fairtrade no doubt) of financial exploitation BANT still maintains that it exists to:

“[...] assist its members in attaining the highest standards of integrity, knowledge, competence and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interests, nutritionaltherapy and the Nutritional Therapist.”

Unfortunately for BANT and what little reputation that remains untarnished it appears that the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Val Mowlam – the only member of the committee with any training in conventional medicine, is in breach of the code of ethics and has committed a criminal offence.  On the Ethics Committee site Ms Mowlam is described as BSc (Hons) NT, BA, RGN, RHV.  RGN and RHV stand for Registered General Nurse and Registered Health Visitor respectively and refer to registered members of the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) who hold these qualifications.  Such qualifications give, as is their intent, the impression that the holder is a competent and regulated individual, this presumably has market value when touting for customers.  This might explain why Ms Mowlam is using these titles on websites advertising her services, after all it is reassuring to know that you are going to see a registered and regulated health professional.  Unfortunately Ms Mowlam isn’t.

Ms Mowlam’s qualifications and experience are not in doubt, but she is neither registered with nor regulated by the NMC.  Thus it is a very serious matter for her to use these qualifications professionally while not on the register.  The NMC are very clear about this:

The NMC’s position regarding the use of qualifications after registration has lapsed is governed by article 44 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001:

“44 (1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication-
(a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register,…
(b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitled…
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this article shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
Article 6(2) states:
“6 (2) Each part shall have a designated title indicative of different qualifications and different kinds of education or training and a registrant is entitled to use the title corresponding to the part of the register in which he is registered.”

It is important, therefore, for nurses and midwives to distinguish between their qualifications and registration status. Those who allow their registration to lapse can still refer to the fact that they are a qualified nurse, midwife or specialist community public health nurse but must not give the impression that they have a current registration.
Nurses and midwives must not cite their previous registration with their name, for example, by placing initials relating to this registration after their name on business cards, e.g. Jane Smith RN, RM, when Jane Smith is currently only registered on the midwives’ part of the register or Jane Smith RN, when Jane Smiths’ registration has lapsed. In doing so it could have the effect of misleading members of the public and that anyone doing so may be committing a criminal offence.

This is a position shared by BANT whose own code states that:

8.7
c) The law makes it a criminal offence for anyone who does not hold the relevant qualification to use any of the titles specified hereunder or to use any other title or description which suggests or implies that he is on the appropriate statutory register.
Titles include; Chemist, Chiropodist, Chiropractor, Dental Practitioner, Dental Surgeon, Dentist,
Dietician, Doctor, Druggist, General Practitioner, Medical Laboratory Technician, Midwife, Nurse,
Occupational Therapist, Optician, Orthoptist, Osteopath, Pharmacist, Physiotherapist,
Radiographer, Remedial Gymnast, Surgeon, Veterinary Practitioner, Veterinary Surgeon. (L).

As chair of the BANT ethics committee it is unacceptable for Ms Mowlam to breach the BANT ethics code by committing this criminal offence.  To have such a high profile member with a responsibility for upholding the code of ethics and passing judgement on breaches of this code to break this same code in such a flagrant and criminal manner is highly embarrassing.  Or it would be if BANT were prepared to make their code of ethics public.  As Holfordwatch have testified BANT like to keep their code of ethics, like their ethics committee, secret and away from the prying eyes of the public.  This contrasts with serious regulatory bodies like the NMC that are statutorily obliged to make their codes and their committees decisions public.  The public would have no way of knowing if Ms Mowlam’s breach of criminal law was also a code of ethics violation so would be unable to complain about her to BANT.  If no complaints were recieved then BANT would not be obliged to take any action and Ms Mowlam will be secure in her job. If you want to complain about Ms Mowlam then feel free but you won’t get a code of ethics from BANT nor will any decision be made public.  You get the feeling that this is a situation that BANT would like to maintain. After all they are a lobbying group representing nutritionists and in cahoots with the vitamin pill manufacturers, it would be bad for business to publicly admit mistakes.

[BPSDB]