Jack of Kent on the Advertising Standards chiropractic ruling

As promised yesterday, here's the link to legal blogger Jack of Kent's take on the Advertising Standards Agency's ruling against the Edgware chiropractors who claimed they could help with childhood colic and learning difficulties.

As I suspected, the ruling wont have any direct implications for Simon Singh's ongoing legal battle, but Jack of Kent has raised a couple of interesting questions. He points out that the regulatory body for chiropractic, the General Chiropractic Council, has a requirement in its Code of Practice for chiropractors to only "publicise their practices or permit another person to do so consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority". So, in light of the new ASA ruling, the British Chiropractic Association's promotion of chiropractic as an effective treatment for colic and other childhood problems would appear to be in breach of the General Chiropractic Council's Code of Practice.

Jack of Kent points out that "the British Chiropractic Association should urgently clarify its positon on the treatment of colic" and, if they continued to claim chiropractic is an effective treatment, they would seemingly be in breach of their own regulatory body's rules. Surely this would then make things difficult for them in relation to suing Simon Singh, as Jack of Kent concludes:

"It would render odd that the British Chiropractic Association still wishes to litigate in respect of its promotion of chiropractic for the treatment of colic when such a promotion by its members would now seemingly be a breach of their professional obligations..."