Doctors of TCM are pleased because regulation will establish a consistent level of education and training to the profession. The government feels that the decision will benefit a large segment of its population. We're confident that this form of regulation has broad support and will work in terms of our objectives of protecting the public. Protection will come in the form of bylaws which will be drafted by the college, as well as malpractice insurance and a formal complaints process. TCM is considered a full-range health profession, so practitioners will be able to treat a variety of ailments, although it is likely that the college will eventually formalize the scope of practice.
Opponents say that establishing an educational standard is pointless.
I'm not in favour of licensure that will imply to the public that these are scientifically validated techniques. Beyerstein also takes issue with the fact that the regulation of TCM will be self-regulation, meaning that it will be doctors of TCM who determine their own standards of practice, and, in the event of malpractice, whether a practitioner is at fault. But Wong says that self-evaluation is standard in conventional medicine, where doctors' work is regularly reviewed by their peers. The efficacy issue can be developed through regulation. Wong acknowledges that there is much work to be done with regard to TCM regulation, but he believes that regulation will encourage answers to skeptics' questions.