An omnibus complaint against animal healers

This summer's special issue of Kindred Spirit has been kind to me, generating well over twenty complaints about various breaches of advertising codes by the advertisers found within.

(Image credit)

I'm almost sorry to have to file the magazine away, but before I do, here are four complaints about animal healers.

As I've written before, it's illegal for anyone other than registered veterinarians (and a few related groups) to treat animals. At least one of the subjects of my complaints disagrees, but I think she'll be disappointed.

Let's see what the ASA have to say about it all. The complaints below are more or less identical.

First, Empowered Healing, who are Caroline Booth (pictured above) and Elizabeth Bate.

"I write to complain about two adverts appearing in "Kindred Spirit" magazine, Summer 2010 issue (p92, centre and p93, top right).

The adverts, for Caroline Booth/Elizabeth Bate and titled "EMPOWERED HEALING FOR ANIMALS AND PEOPLE", promote an animal healing service and "courses" to teach these skills to others.

I suspect that the advert may be in breach of five sections of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) code.

I enclose a scan of the advert on p92, which is identical to the one on p93. I can provide an original copy of the adverts by post, if required.

1. The advert includes the text:

"EMPOWERED HEALING FOR ANIMALS AND PEOPLE. Liz and Caroline are very experienced healers and run various empowering courses, including Animal Healing. Details and Testimonies www.empoweredhealing.co.uk"

2. (i) The advertised website lists the qualifications of Caroline Booth [1]. It appears she is not a veterinarian.

(ii) The same website does not list the qualifications of Elizabeth Bate [2]. Nevertheless, I understand she is not a veterinarian.

3. According to The Royal College of Veterinary Science [3]:

"The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Section 19) provides, subject to a number of exceptions, that only registered members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may practise veterinary surgery. 'Veterinary surgery' is defined within the Act as encompassing the 'art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine' which includes the diagnosis of diseases and injuries in animals, tests performed on animals for diagnostic purposes, advice based upon a diagnosis and surgical operations which may not necessarily form part of a treatment. These restrictions are in the interests of ensuring that animals are treated only by people qualified to do so."

4. (i) Under Section 4.1 of the CAP Code, I challenge whether the advertisers have complied with their "primary responsibility for ensuring that their marketing communications are legal" in relation to their animal healing services, and their animal healing courses.

(ii) Under Section 4.1, I challenge whether the courses the advert promotes may incite anyone to break the law.

(iii) Under Section 4.2 I challenge whether the advertisers have stated their animal-healing service can legally be sold, if it cannot.

5. (i) Under Section 2.2, I challenge whether the advert has been "prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society".

(ii) Under Section 6.1, I challenge whether the advert exploits the "credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers" by not mentioning that, under the Act, only registered veterinarians can treat animals.

(iii) Under Section 7.1, I challenge whether the advert is likely to mislead by omission of any mention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

6. I confirm that I have no connections with the advertiser or the magazine. I confirm that I am not involved in legal proceedings with the advertiser or the magazine.

Footnotes:
[1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pshinde/empoweredhealing/about_caroline.htm
[2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pshinde/empoweredhealing/about_liz.htm
[3] http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92572&int2ndParentNodeID=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642#students
"

Next, Gill Schweizer who promotes a disturbing method for encouraging animals to prescribe their own medicines. (I'm not making it up.)

"I write to complain about an advert appearing in "Kindred Spirit" magazine, Summer 2010 issue (p92, centre).

The advert, for Gill Schweizer and titled "ZOOPHARMACOGNOSY - ANIMALS SELF MEDICATING [sic]" promotes an animal healing service.

I suspect that the advert may be in breach of seven sections of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) code. I can provide an original copy of the advert by post, if required.

1. The advert includes the text:

"Watch their innate knowledge of plants, clays, algaes etc. guide them to heal their issues, behavioral [sic]/emotional/physical. Share their healing experience, connect on a deeper level. Natural and unique..."

2. (i) I understand that Gill Schweizer is not a veterinarian; additionally there is no mention of any such qualifications on her website, whose URL appears in the advert [1].

(ii) As well as providing information, the advertised website promotes Gill Schweizer's services as an animal healer [2].

3. According to The Royal College of Veterinary Science [3]:

"The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Section 19) provides, subject to a number of exceptions, that only registered members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may practise veterinary surgery. 'Veterinary surgery' is defined within the Act as encompassing the 'art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine' which includes the diagnosis of diseases and injuries in animals, tests performed on animals for diagnostic purposes, advice based upon a diagnosis and surgical operations which may not necessarily form part of a treatment. These restrictions are in the interests of ensuring that animals are treated only by people qualified to do so."

4. (i) Under Section 4.1 of the CAP Code, I challenge whether the advertiser has complied with their "primary responsibility for ensuring that their marketing communications are legal", and I challenge whether the advert incites anyone to break the law.

(ii) Under Section 4.2 I challenge whether the advertiser has stated her animal-healing service can legally be sold, if it cannot.

5. (i) Under Section 2.2, I challenge whether the advert has been "prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society".

(ii) Under Section 6.1, I challenge whether the advert exploits the "credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers" by not mentioning that, under the Act, only registered veterinarians can treat animals.

(iii) Under Section 7.1, I challenge whether the advert is likely to mislead by omission of any mention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

6. Under Sections 3.1 and 50.1, I challenge whether the advertiser can substantiate their claim that animals have an innate ability to prescribe medicines for themselves ("Watch their innate knowledge of plants, clays, algaes etc [which] guide them to heal their issues, behavioral [sic]/emotional/physical.")

7. (i) At least one other advert promoting "zoopharmacognosy" appears on the same page.

(ii) Therefore under Section 7.1, I challenge whether the claim that the advertiser's service is "unique", is misleading.

8 I confirm that I have no connections with the advertiser or the magazine. I confirm that I am not involved in legal proceedings with the advertiser or the magazine.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.holisticanimalhealing.co.uk/index.html
[2] http://www.holisticanimalhealing.co.uk/contact.html
[3] http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92572&int2ndParentNodeID=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642#students
"

Next is Marc Knightman, whose Trance Healing techniques you're "welcome" to request for your pets.

"I write to complain about an advert appearing in "Kindred Spirit" magazine, Summer 2010 issue (p93, centre right).

The advert, for Marc Knightman and titled "SAND AND CARD READINGS", promotes among other things an animal healing service.

I suspect that the advert may be in breach of four sections of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) code. I can provide an original copy of the advert by post, if required.

1. The advert includes the text:

"SAND AND CARD READINGS, attunements/alignments, Spiritual guidance. Sound Channeled [sic] Trance Healing (Animal Healing welcome)..."

2. The advertiser has featured in a handful of articles in complementary therapy magazines. I have found no indications that he is a veterinarian.

3. According to The Royal College of Veterinary Science [1]:

"The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Section 19) provides, subject to a number of exceptions, that only registered members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may practise veterinary surgery. 'Veterinary surgery' is defined within the Act as encompassing the 'art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine' which includes the diagnosis of diseases and injuries in animals, tests performed on animals for diagnostic purposes, advice based upon a diagnosis and surgical operations which may not necessarily form part of a treatment. These restrictions are in the interests of ensuring that animals are treated only by people qualified to do so."

4. (i) Under Section 4.1 of the CAP Code, I challenge whether the advertiser has complied with his "primary responsibility for ensuring that their marketing communications are legal" in offering animal healing.

(ii) Under Section 2.2, I challenge whether the advert has been "prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society".

(iii) Under Section 6.1, I challenge whether the advert exploits the "credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers" by not mentioning that, under the Act, only registered veterinarians can treat animals.

(iv) Under Section 7.1, I challenge whether the advert is likely to mislead by omission of any mention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

5. I confirm that I have no connections with the advertiser or the magazine. I confirm that I am not involved in legal proceedings with the advertiser or the magazine.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92572&int2ndParentNodeID=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642#students
"

Finally, Jo Rose Holistic Therapies and Training, a firm which promises to teach these (probably illegal) animal-healing skills to others.

"I write to complain about an advert appearing in "Kindred Spirit" magazine, Summer 2010 issue (p92, bottom).

The advert, for Jo Rose Holistic Therapies and Training and titled "WORKSHOPS AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING", promotes courses in "complementary therapies for animals".

I suspect that the advert may be in breach of four sections of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) code. I can provide an original copy of the advert by post, if required.

1. The advert includes the text:

"With Jo Rose, BHSIT, KFRP, MMT and her team of animal complementary health and behaviour professionals. ...Kinesiology, Reiki...Zoopharmacognosy..."

2. The advertised website [1] lists Jo Rose's qualifications. She is not a veterinarian.

3. According to The Royal College of Veterinary Science [2]:

"The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Section 19) provides, subject to a number of exceptions, that only registered members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may practise veterinary surgery. 'Veterinary surgery' is defined within the Act as encompassing the 'art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine' which includes the diagnosis of diseases and injuries in animals, tests performed on animals for diagnostic purposes, advice based upon a diagnosis and surgical operations which may not necessarily form part of a treatment. These restrictions are in the interests of ensuring that animals are treated only by people qualified to do so."

4. (i) Under Section 4.1 of the CAP Code, I challenge whether the advertisers have complied with their "primary responsibility for ensuring that their marketing communications are legal" in offering courses for treating animals with Kinesiology, Reiki and Pharmacognosy.

(ii) Under Section 4.1, I also challenge whether the advert incites anyone to break the law.

5. (i) Under Section 2.2, I challenge whether the advert has been "prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society".

(ii) Under Section 6.1, I challenge whether the advert exploits the "credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers" by not mentioning that, under the Act, only registered veterinarians can treat animals.

(iii) Under Section 7.1, I challenge whether the advert is likely to mislead by omission of any mention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

6. I confirm that I have no connections with the advertiser or the magazine. I confirm that I am not involved in legal proceedings with the advertiser or the magazine.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.rose-therapy.co.uk/id41.html
[2] http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92572&int2ndParentNodeID=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642#students
"