Pamela Miles send out an email addressing
a UK Reiki website threatened to be shut
down. Here's an excerpt from that email

The ASA required Maggie to remove from her website all claims that Reiki treats any condition or affects the physical body, as well as all references to healing, treatment, and benefits. Specifically, she was instructed to strike the following passage from her website:

“Reiki is believed to have many beneficial effects by:
Treating the symptoms and causes of illness
Strengthening the immune system
Clearing toxins
Relieving pain
Restoring balance e.g. hormones
Inducing a sense of relaxation and calmness
Reducing stress
Promoting creativity and intuition.”

hmm who or what is the ASA and what authority do they have in regards to telling someone what they can or cannot have in their website?

Pachamama wrote:hmm who or what is the ASA and what authority do they have in regards to telling someone what they can or cannot have in their website?

Hi Sharon

The ASA is the Advertising Standards Authority www.ASA.org.UK and they are an independent regulator of advertising across ALL media, which includes website and flyers. The do have the legal right to challenge claims made when advertising goods and services but only when in receipt of at least one complaint.

Unfortunately, one or more groups of self-styled fundamentalist-scientists and quack-watchers are making it their business to scan as many complementary therapy websites as possible and make complaints to the ASA in an attempt to stop practitioners making unsubstantiated claims. This could actually do us a favour because it may help us appear more credible if we make the required changes but I think the idea of these groups is more likely to put us out of business or at least scare many people away from advertising their practice.

There was actually a happy ending to the story that Bridget mentions. Here is a link to the full article:
http://reikiinmedicine.org/reiki-media/reiki-website-regulated/

Colin, does free speech enter into this issue?

Free speech is one thing but making claims that cannot be substantiated and could be seen to mislead vulnerable people in some form of publicly available medium is something which, in the UK at least comes under the jurisdiction of the Codes of Advertising Practice (CAP) of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

They are not saying we don't have the right to say we practice Reiki and talk about it but what we say in our literature/websites etc. has to conform to set standards.

Colin wrote:Free speech is one thing but making claims that cannot be substantiated and could be seen to mislead vulnerable people in some form of publicly available medium is something which, in the UK at least comes under the jurisdiction of the Codes of Advertising Practice (CAP) of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

They are not saying we don't have the right to say we practice Reiki and talk about it but what we say in our literature/websites etc. has to conform to set standards.

I heard John Hume speak here in Boston a few decades ago.
During his speech he said that British laws are 2nd to none.

good question on free speech Bridet. i wondered that with forums also. we're french hosted, so uk laws are applicable anyhow, hehe.

Colin wrote:Free speech is one thing but making claims that cannot be substantiated and could be seen to mislead vulnerable people in some form of publicly available medium is something which, in the UK at least comes under the jurisdiction of the Codes of Advertising Practice (CAP) of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

They are not saying we don't have the right to say we practice Reiki and talk about it but what we say in our literature/websites etc. has to conform to set standards.

Sadly, it eventually comes down to games of word-play.


Maggie obviously thought that in using the phrasing:
“Reiki is believed to have many beneficial effects ...."
she was not presenting the information as a Statement of Fact.

however, because she used an 'open' statement - i.e. she was not specific when it came to who believes Reiki has many beneficial effects - this is likely to be viewed by the ASA as misleading.

The statement is considered to be open to the interpretation that there may be scientific data to back up the listed "beneficial effects"

Maggie may still have been able to list the "beneficial effects" had she used more careful phrasing.

Milarepa wrote:
good question on free speech Bridet. i wondered that with forums also. we're french hosted, so uk laws are applicable anyhow

The issue in Maggie's case is one of Advertising, and of statements made in relation to the advertising of services.

This is quite different from issues of free speech.

As I understand it, there is nothing to stop us (as Reiki practitioners) from discussing Reiki, and our views and beliefs concerning the effectiveness of Reiki, even on open fora.

However, the moment we link this discussion with the Advertising of Reiki treatments (and /or training), it is then that we are getting into problematic territory.

Yes, that is my understanding also, James.

been thinking a bit about this, I'm a little out of the 'loop' regarding do's and dont's in advertising....I'll be making some fliers in a couple of weeks to 'advertise' a free Reiki clinic, I have to admit I'm quite concerned about how I word it....

any helpful suggestions from you good folk of this reiki forum would be kindly appreciated

Rlei_ki wrote:

Colin wrote:Free speech is one thing but making claims that cannot be substantiated and could be seen to mislead vulnerable people in some form of publicly available medium is something which, in the UK at least comes under the jurisdiction of the Codes of Advertising Practice (CAP) of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

They are not saying we don't have the right to say we practice Reiki and talk about it but what we say in our literature/websites etc. has to conform to set standards.

Sadly, it eventually comes down to games of word-play.


Maggie obviously thought that in using the phrasing:
“Reiki is believed to have many beneficial effects ...."
she was not presenting the information as a Statement of Fact.

however, because she used an 'open' statement - i.e. she was not specific when it came to who believes Reiki has many beneficial effects - this is likely to be viewed by the ASA as misleading.

The statement is considered to be open to the interpretation that there may be scientific data to back up the listed "beneficial effects"

Maggie may still have been able to list the "beneficial effects" had she used more careful phrasing.

Milarepa wrote:
good question on free speech Bridet. i wondered that with forums also. we're french hosted, so uk laws are applicable anyhow

The issue in Maggie's case is one of Advertising, and of statements made in relation to the advertising of services.

This is quite different from issues of free speech.

As I understand it, there is nothing to stop us (as Reiki practitioners) from discussing Reiki, and our views and beliefs concerning the effectiveness of Reiki, even on open fora.

However, the moment we link this discussion with the Advertising of Reiki treatments (and /or training), it is then that we are getting into problematic territory.

not sure of the legalities really, or if it is more country specific. on the quantum touch forum i'd a big disagreement with someone pretty prominent when i said in passing about qt being great for 'physical healing'. in private they had real concerns about what was said and us laws. it was one members vie though.

Colin wrote:Free speech is one thing but making claims that cannot be substantiated and could be seen to mislead vulnerable people in some form of publicly available medium is something which, in the UK at least comes under the jurisdiction of the Codes of Advertising Practice (CAP) of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

So, now that the advertising of Reiki practice has made it onto the ASA radar, so to speak; I wonder if people are going to have to be more careful, not just in relation to the claims re: the effects of Reiki treatment, but also, claims re: the nature of what is being taught on Reiki training courses?

I'm thinking specifically in terms of those who promote their styles of Reiki as being somehow "purer" / "better" / "more traditional" / "more original" (yes, I did just use the dreaded "O" word ) than other styles.

I suppose it depends on what it is that your teachings are are "purer" / "better" / "more traditional" / "more original" THAN!

In other words, "purer" / "better" / "more traditional" / "more original" than which particular form of Reiki... or there is nothing really to compare with. Is it "purer" than Celtic Reiki, Dolphin Reiki, Ascension Reiki, Tera Mai, Gendai Reiki, Usui Shiki Ryoho (!) etc.

These terms are relative rather than absolute.