Dr Title Input Pls - Oregon HB 3089

[Guest guest]

thanks for that suggestion doc! that was an

obvious omission on my part. im not at my

computer now, just my phone, later sunday ill

send the text of that administrative rule / law.

i look forward to more discussion, sounds needed

and exciting. really, tho, one question. is

everyone - even only in this one country - going

to have training so homogenenous that everyone

would garner exactly the same title? that scares

me to no end, to tell the truth. remember,

perceived anti diversity was why the alliance

originally formed separate from the aaom. lynn

---

<dr.w.w.waldrope wrote:

> Dear Lynn,

>

> In order for folks not familiar with Oregon

law, you might want to

> tell us what ORS 677.085 (5) is about ( I

presume it refers to ones'

> title). In general, however, I agree that

legislation that is vaguely

> worded can be problematic. I am a practitioner

in Florida. We have the

> privelege to be licensed as AP (Acupuncture

Physician) but we may also

> use the title Dr. as in DOM even without a

DAOM degree. We are also

> considered to be primary care providers. In

other states, even

> practitioners who hold degrees such as M.D.

(China) are relegated to

> the title L.Ac. I am attempting to develop a

forum at

>

> www.acupuncturemed.blogspot.com

>

> to address issues such as this. I perceive that

one of the main

> problems facing our profession is the lack of

consistency across the

> country regarding titles of practitioners and

scope of practice.

>

> This is a political issue mostly having to do

with the AMA and Big

> Pharma lobbying. I would recommend that you

contact your state

> organization and develop a dialogue with your

fellow practitioners and

> your legislature in order to insure the

protection of your rights to

> practice TCM without undue influence from

non-TCM parties.

>

> I will start a thread at my blogspot regarding

your topic. You will

> then have a place to share opinions on this

particular subject with

> your fellow " Dr.s " from Oregon and elsewhere.

>

> I believe that the more progress we make as a

profession; the more

> resistance we will meet from the " powers that

be. " The way to deal with

> this is, unfortunately, a political process and

that requires time,

> $$$$$ for lobbyists, and diligence.

>

> Good luck,

> Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM, AP

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Get your own web address.

Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

http://smallbusiness./domains/?p=BESTDEAL

[Guest guest]

thanks for that suggestion doc! that was an

obvious omission on my part. im not at my

computer now, just my phone, later sunday ill

send the text of that administrative rule / law.

i look forward to more discussion, sounds needed

and exciting. really, tho, one question. is

everyone - even only in this one country - going

to have training so homogenenous that everyone

would garner exactly the same title? that scares

me to no end, to tell the truth. remember,

perceived anti diversity was why the alliance

originally formed separate from the aaom. lynn

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go

with Mail for Mobile. Get started.

http://mobile./mail

[Guest guest]

J. Lynn Detamore [lynndetamore]

 

To clarify ORS 677.085 (5) - italics supplied:

" 677.085 What constitutes practice of medicine. A person is practicing

medicine if the person does one or more of the following:

(5) Except as provided in ORS 677.060, append the letters " M.D. "

or " D.O. " to the name of the person, or use the words " Doctor, "

" Physician, " " Surgeon, " **or any abbreviation or combination thereof,**

or any letters or words of similar import in connection with the name of

the person,** or any trade name in which the person is interested,** in

the conduct of any occupation or profession pertaining to the diagnosis

or treatment of human diseases or conditions** mentioned in this

section. "

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/677.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Again, the proposed Oregon legislation:

" Notwithstanding ORS 677.085 (5), a person who has completed a program

that leads to a doctoral degree in Oriental medicine and acupuncture

from a school that has federally recognized accreditation may use the

words " Doctor of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine " **or any

abbreviation or combination thereof, **or any letters or words of

similar import in connection with the name of the person,** or any trade

name in which the person is interested,** in the conduct of any

occupation or profession pertaining to the practice of acupuncture.** "

 

Well, I have supplied double asterisks in the existing rule applying to

MD's, DO's, DPM's and OD's, and the proposed rule relating to DAOM's

below. This does show that the proposed legislation mirrors the existing

rule medical professionals. Personally, I still think some of this

wording is silly, but since it's been in the ORS for a number of years

with very minor variations, it's obviously stood the test of holding up

to any court challenges.

 

I don't see personal grounds to object to this proposed rule. I believe

the legitimate basis for objection from elsewhere WILL be that the

degrees at object do not have Department of Education accreditation. Of

course, there will be those codgers who will think that jane and joe

public might think we be medical doc's if we are Dr Linda Bartley, Lac.

Bogus, the public knows that OD's and psychologists aren't medical

doctors! Also, when such legislation passes, we will, OF COURSE, engage

in a large media blitz to educate the public. Radio, tv spots, etc. At

least, we do have a history in the states of DOE accreditation in many

places, and increasingly tight internal standards among ourselves. We do

have that on our side. If I had to present such details, I'd certainly

have homework to do, but I have seen this metamorphosis happening and

continuing since I went to school and graduated in 96.

 

Thank you for any more input! I'll be sending my friend and nearby

legislator a statement tomorrow, endorsing this legislation and stating

the above possible objections I think she might hear and healthy

responses.

 

Lynn

[Guest guest]

J. Lynn Detamore [lynndetamore]

 

To clarify ORS 677.085 (5) - italics supplied:

" 677.085 What constitutes practice of medicine. A person is practicing

medicine if the person does one or more of the following:

(5) Except as provided in ORS 677.060, append the letters " M.D. "

or " D.O. " to the name of the person, or use the words " Doctor, "

" Physician, " " Surgeon, " **or any abbreviation or combination thereof,**

or any letters or words of similar import in connection with the name of

the person,** or any trade name in which the person is interested,** in

the conduct of any occupation or profession pertaining to the diagnosis

or treatment of human diseases or conditions** mentioned in this

section. "

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/677.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Again, the proposed Oregon legislation:

" Notwithstanding ORS 677.085 (5), a person who has completed a program

that leads to a doctoral degree in Oriental medicine and acupuncture

from a school that has federally recognized accreditation may use the

words " Doctor of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine " **or any

abbreviation or combination thereof, **or any letters or words of

similar import in connection with the name of the person,** or any trade

name in which the person is interested,** in the conduct of any

occupation or profession pertaining to the practice of acupuncture.** "

 

Well, I have supplied double asterisks in the existing rule applying to

MD's, DO's, DPM's and OD's, and the proposed rule relating to DAOM's

below. This does show that the proposed legislation mirrors the existing

rule medical professionals. Personally, I still think some of this

wording is silly, but since it's been in the ORS for a number of years

with very minor variations, it's obviously stood the test of holding up

to any court challenges.

 

I don't see personal grounds to object to this proposed rule. I believe

the legitimate basis for objection from elsewhere WILL be that the

degrees at object do not have Department of Education accreditation. Of

course, there will be those codgers who will think that jane and joe

public might think we be medical doc's if we are Dr Linda Bartley, Lac.

Bogus, the public knows that OD's and psychologists aren't medical

doctors! Also, when such legislation passes, we will, OF COURSE, engage

in a large media blitz to educate the public. Radio, tv spots, etc. At

least, we do have a history in the states of DOE accreditation in many

places, and increasingly tight internal standards among ourselves. We do

have that on our side. If I had to present such details, I'd certainly

have homework to do, but I have seen this metamorphosis happening and

continuing since I went to school and graduated in 96.

 

Thank you for any more input! I'll be sending my friend and nearby

legislator a statement tomorrow, endorsing this legislation and stating

the above possible objections I think she might hear and healthy

responses.

 

Lynn