“Alternative practitioners can face prosecution for advising against medical treatment”

Patients rarely report to the police

Alternative medicine encompasses treatments and therapies that deviate from conventional medical care. These are also referred to as non-conventional, supplementary, or complementary care. According to the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (Inspectie Gezondheidszorg en Jeugd, IGJ), there is no scientific evidence that these treatments can cure diseases.

Alternative therapists stand by their methods. "These therapists often avoid consequences as long as no one suffers serious harm," Buijsen recently stated in De Telegraaf. "And as long as no formal complaints are filed against them." When asked whether patients are likely to report incidents to the police, Buijsen suspects this is rare, either due to shame or a strong belief in the effectiveness of the therapy.

Unregulated yet under supervision

"The issue is that anyone can label themselves as an alternative healer, practitioner, or therapist," Buijsen reiterates. He explains that these titles are not legally protected, unlike professions such as doctor or nurse. "No formal education is required; one could simply put up a sign in their garden and start their practice."

Since the introduction of the Healthcare Quality, Complaints, and Disputes Act (Wkkgz) in 2016, the IGJ has been tasked with supervising alternative healthcare providers. However, this law imposes different standards on alternative care as compared to conventional healthcare. Conventional care providers are legally required to offer what is defined as 'good care.' Alternative practitioners, on the other hand, must not cause harm or pose a significant risk to a patient's health. The Inspectorate can intervene when a report is filed, but in practice, much like police reports, this happens infrequently.

No carte blanche

"This does not grant alternative healers a free pass," Buijsen emphasises. It is a criminal offence to discourage ill individuals from seeking treatment from their general practitioner or hospital. "If someone with cancer consults a faith healer, that healer cannot tell the patient to avoid the hospital from then on," Buijsen states. Such actions could lead to prosecution.

In reality, such prosecutions are rare, though there have been cases leading to legal action—the most notable being the Millecam legal case. Two practitioners of alternative medicine were convicted for failing to adhere to the professional standard expected of a medical practitioner by not informing Millecam of the consequences of her choice. It is crucial that healthcare providers, particularly those holding formal medical titles, inform patients about the potential outcomes of rejecting conventional treatments.

The Millecam case
The Millecam legal case concerns the death of Dutch actress Sylvia Millecam and the involvement of psychic healer Jomanda and alternative health practitioners. Millecam was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001. She opted for alternative therapies rather than conventional treatments like chemotherapy, placing her faith in treatment from Jomanda and two alternative health practitioners. Millecam ultimately died from the disease.

Jomanda was acquitted, but the alternative practitioners were convicted for failing to ensure that Millecam received the necessary conventional medical care. Aware of her diagnosis, they acted contrary to the professional standard expected of registered doctors. Despite Millecam's rejection of conventional medicine, the alternative doctors were obligated to inform her about the consequences of her decision. They received conditional sentences of three and six weeks, respectively.