How can a patient be sure you know what you’re talking about when it comes to medicines and health advice? You might say the answer is simple: you have an easily checkable registration number. But, actually, it doesn’t mean a thing.

In April, the previous government made tentative plans to ensure all practitioners of complementary therapy must be registered with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. This includes anyone providing aromatherapy and reflexology, and will soon include acupuncture and general ‘healing’.

Former health minister Andy Burnham argued for the move, recognising that herbal remedies are unlicensed, but that the register would “increase public protection, but without the full trappings of professional recognition.

Unsurprisingly, this suggestion caused a bit of a stir in science circles, with fans of evidence-based medicine warning that the scheme would be based on accreditation, not whether treatments actually work. And as charity Sense About Science, which this week demonstrated against the suggestion outside the Department of Health, points out, a member of the public won’t know the difference between a recognised health professional and someone registered to provide a complementary therapy.

There are added complications in the pharmacy world, too. Only pharmacists who decide to join the professional leadership body will have the post-nominal MRPharmS to show patients as added ‘proof’. But it’s not a legal requirement to join the new Society, or a measure of professionalism or added competence. It’s the GPhC registration that matters to patients.

By keeping a register, healthcare professions make a pact with the public. They say that this person doctor, dentist, pharmacist or nurse is at a set competency for providing evidence-based healthcare.

A register of complementary therapists would only add confusion to an already mudded picture, and potentially be to the detriment of patients.