Specialty Board Conversation

[Guest guest]

marnae:

 

i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the queries in my recent

post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from hearing your views.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

 

 

1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can discussion this

and other issues. it seems that in our digital age, setting up some

discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to difficult.

It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for many voices to be

heard on various matters affecting the profession so that the organizations

can know what's going on the in collective minds of the profession.

2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at this point in

time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is to develop DAOM

programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine requiring advanced

edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology, etc. it seems to me

that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a progression of the

advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm hearing about the

three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they mostly serve for

marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't see that as a

legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM programs satisfy

the need for additional edu and training, and for academic distinction of a

particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both DAOM's and

specialty boards at this point in the development of the TCM profession in

the US.

3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core need right

now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective energy would be

better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of acupuncture in this

country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of TCM (herb bans,

licensing in all 50 states).

4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard

two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does not

practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that what

i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i have not heard

anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe that

the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners in a

particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the broader needs of

the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of the profession, i

would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not fertility acu's arguing

for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are discussing

changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM, that we must get

beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look at what will best

serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long term.

 

all for now,

 

kath

 

 

 

On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae wrote:

 

> Kath -

>

> Let me respond to some of your points:

>

> 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> discussion is whether we need specialty

> boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> respective training.

> what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

>

> ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> question that must be addressed. As I have said

> before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> (including but not limited to infertility),

> dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> medicine very differently in this country (in the

> West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> not treating the same number of patients as are

> treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> specialize because we would not have time to do the

> work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> should do that, and let their experience and their

> success speak for them.

>

> While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> ever be required in order to practice within that

> specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> any field that a generalist might not know.

> Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> profession, would know when we need more information,

> and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> come into existence.

>

> Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> something in marnae's post about

> insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> they would get a seat at

> the table or why they would be an invited guest.

>

> The reason the insurance companies were included in

> the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> risk and what the development of specialty boards

> would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> do not know that this is true and we would like to

> hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> that we want to take.

>

> Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> that specialty boards would be of

> value, then we need to determine how they should be

> set up. what kind of

> oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> current west model, or do

> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> of TCM in the US? "

>

> Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> in existence in our field and there is basically

> nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> want.

>

> My two cents.

>

> Marnae

>

>

 

 

 

--

Kath Bartlett, LAc, MS, BA UCLA

Oriental Medicine

Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

 

Asheville Center For

70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

kbartlett

www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

David,

 

Yes it is important to have some plan of how things need to logically develop.

Just as in life there needs to be a plan. If we run off half-cocked, then we

will likely fail

and that is something we can ill afford at this critical time. BTW, it just

makes

good common sense to shore up the profession before making plans to expand it.

 

What will you do when this specialty fails to gain the profession's support?

 

You might want to read Marnae Ergil's response to this board question as well.

From

others that I have spoken with, I have not heard of anyone here in favor of

doing this. Some are interested in doctorate degrees as a means to expand

knowledge

and recognition.

 

I hope you will open your mind to this possibility as well.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

_______________

Capture your memories in an online journal!

http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

It seems like there is a pretty good plan in place. Initiative leads

and regulation follows. Some very motivated people identified a need

and mobilized their energy and efforts to form a Board.

 

Here we are now, before the first test is even given, and already

there is some positive action moving toward better regulation.

 

Meetings, as you know, are underway between concerned practitioners,

ABORM, NCCAOM, and AAAOM to begin to study and consider how to best

regulate and implement such agencies.

 

What is it about this process that is not working?

 

You ask, " What will you do when this specialty fails to gain the

profession's support? "

 

I will just go about my business. Helping patients, practicing OM,

and working toward improving our profession. As we have discussed,

the NCCAOM did not enjoy broad support when it first began imposing

regulations on a field of previously unregulated acupuncture

Yayhoos. People didn't immediately warm up to the idea of being

subjected to tests, and fees, and compliance, etc. And there

certainly was no profession-wide consensus on the matter!

 

What did the (group now known as the) NCCAOM do? They kept going.

They kept improving. They kept responding to their commitments and

to the greater good of the profession.

 

It seems unlikely, Mike, that we will ever agree on all of these

points. But NCCAOM started somewhere and is now doing just fine. The

ABMS started somewhere and is now doing just fine. And the ABORM is

starting now, and I suspect that it will follow suit.

 

Heck, even the good ole USA started as a desire of " We the People "

to " build a more perfect union. " I don't think this whole 'merican

thing was fully fleshed out before that first shot was fired in

Lexington. And hey, that worked out o .............uh. Well....let's

just focus on the examples of ABMS and NCCAOM.

 

Unfortunately for the opponents of these Specialty Boards, I don't

think that the bards can be stopped. Despite the prevailing opinions

of " the profession, " I just do not believe that there exists any

kind of governing body that holds a mandate to stop such boards from

forming.

 

I asked in my last post if anybody could identify the process by

which " the profession " decides anything. So far, I haven't heard

anything compelling that would lead me to believe that such things

can be regulated. Fortunately, I believe that the specialty board

that has aroused all of this interest is willing to be regulated. I

believe that this board would very much like to be in partnership

with groups like NCCAOM and AAAOM.

 

But, as for the question, " What will you do when this specialty

fails to gain the profession's support? "

 

Honestly, I can't even form a picture of what such an outcome would

look like - other than passionate internet posts and full page ads

in Acupuncture Today. Can you (or anybody else in this discussion)

explain to me what tangible outcomes I can expect when this

specialty board " fails to gain the profession's support? "

 

David Karchmer

 

-----------------------------

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> David,

>

> Yes it is important to have some plan of how things need to

logically develop.

> Just as in life there needs to be a plan. If we run off half-

cocked, then we will likely fail

> and that is something we can ill afford at this critical time.

BTW, it just makes

> good common sense to shore up the profession before making plans

to expand it.

>

> What will you do when this specialty fails to gain the

profession's support?

>

> You might want to read Marnae Ergil's response to this board

question as well. From

> others that I have spoken with, I have not heard of anyone here in

favor of

> doing this. Some are interested in doctorate degrees as a means

to expand knowledge

> and recognition.

>

> I hope you will open your mind to this possibility as well.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> _______________

> Capture your memories in an online journal!

> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

>

>

[Guest guest]

Agree Mike,this post & all your previous ones. Very eloquently expressed,

indeed.

Coming from a cautious, matured, well seasoned mind.

Speaks of / from a solid learning/experiences in life.

Deeply grateful for your time, tact, & patience.

 

Can't resist the reply button any longer. Can slay me, but don't pete me, I

beg.

Had doubled-up on Xioa Yao Wan b4 hitting the reply button.

Effects should be in progress b4 hitting the send one.

 

My question to David : Where do you see the WM cart at?

Don't matter if the horse is behind the cart /vice versa.

Where is it , David? You see it far from you,correct? That's where you

seek to be next to.

And as well, you see OM cart very far behind, correct?

 

Are you underwater or above the surface?

If you're not, come up to the surface, take a few deep breathes.

You should feel better soon, and would know exactly where you're at,

and everybody else in your group. For you can not do this alone.

You need helpers! ( whole Om group)

 

For if you insist to stay submerged, your disorientation gets

progressively worse,

and could get fatal, not only for you, but for everybody else on board.

 

This will bring us to what Mike has said in his previous post:

" Why do you wish to bring our prof backward?

We've worked so hard to be where we're at. "

 

Next question: Have you really, really, truely, honestly looked it over

(WM cart)

If you had, what did you see, David? All glitters! (only glitters)

If you have not seen it in it's truest form,

Your vision has failed you. Look again. Start at the stats: deaths/yr

Then go back to the WM cart. Hopefully by this time, you'll see " Humpty

Dumpty "

cleverly glued together & extensively glossed over.

For many had abandoned that cart very much opposing " free lunch. "

 

Been there all my adult life.

Have read all the writings on the walls many,many times over.

Rest now my child, for tomorrow,

there's still a lot of growing for you to do.

" For life may not all be what it seems. "

And not all that glitter is gold "

 

I Love you still. Take care.

 

 

amy

 

 

 

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

David,

 

You are right that there is a process but fail to understand the issue of

professional support and its importance to your organizational success.

 

I would like to hear where your studies show any significant support for any

board specialization in OM. The fact that negative advertising was recently

paid for by a group of concerned LAc over this issue, I would beg to differ with

your opinions about acceptability.

 

I ask TCM students, faculty and discuss this issue with other practitioners in

the metro area where I live. They would not be against a future idea related to

specialities but do not see it as a good usage of time or resources now.

 

Other then this, one of my other concerns is what training or seminars is the

exam based upon and why would someone pay to take an exam when they can take

these same open enrollment seminars and advertise they are experts as well. I

appreciate your dialogue but sometimes what we each want is not the best thing

for all of us.

 

Mike W. Bowser, LAc

_______________

Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It’s our way of

saying thanks for using Windows Live™.

http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2

[Guest guest]

Mike;

 

What is your take on the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics (NBAO),

especially regarding their role in certification and specialization?

David Molony

 

In a message dated 9/24/07 6:24:00 PM, naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

>

>

> David,

>

> I am sorry if I offended you but you seem to be misinterpretting my wording.

> It is not meant to be a judgement but many of the players that are for

> creating the ABORM and other boards may not be looking for

> it to benefit the profession, as a primary goal. Many are looking to set

> themselves apart. There has been much to do on here about the money and if we

> really even need to have a specialty, at least at this time in our evolution.

I

> happen to think we need to be spending our time getting ourselves stronger

> and consolidation of our institutions, making better laws in all states,

> doctoral degrees and doctoral-degreed faculty and then we should be thinking

about

> possible specialty boards. That could be many decades from now as we do not

> yet have either of the others done.

>

> The concept of our profession is similar, I guess, to other professions in

> that we are the ones who got legislation passed and to some extent participate

> in a constant monitoring of it. Many states have laws that usually mention a

> self-policing regulation designed for us to report practitioners who violate

> the law.

>

> On a similar note, there was am exchange printed in Acupuncture Today betw

> een the NOMAA and the AAAOM (formerly AAOM) and how our professional

> representatives basically squelched them. They have yet to get anything going

and the

> one school they choose has now come under ACAOM suspension for violation for

> changes to its program. Are you aware that an informal group of AAAOM reps has

> or will be discussing the issue of specialty boards and whether or not they

> are rellevent to our profession?

>

> The maverick mentality is one that worked for our profession a long time ago

> but will no longer. Creating these so called certification programs without

> public and practitioner input will seek to divide us and put a lot of

> questions into the minds of the patients, the legislators, malpractice

insurance

> companies and ourselves. I understand your desire to want to learn to help

> patients, collaborate with others and be recognized. These are things we all

share

> in common. Set your self apart with your experiences and successes.

>

> Please remember that there are still some groups out there that teach

> acupuncture in seminars, often without any supervised clinical training. If we

take

> our eye off the ball, then we will lose a lot more then our ego. Our

> privilege to practice came from the " profession " that started schools,

> organizations, etc.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, LAc

> ____________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

> Can you find the hidden words?  Take a break and play Seekadoo!

> http://club.http://clhttp://clhttp://cluhttp://club.<wbrhtt

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

" If in a competitive society you are sincere and honest, in some

circumstances people may take advantage of you. If you let someone do so, he or

she will

be engaging in an unsuitable action and accumulating bad karma that will harm

the person in the future. Thus it is permissable, with an altruistic

motivation, to take counteraction in order to prevent the other person from

having to

undergo the effects of this wrong action. "

Dalai Lama

 

David Molony

101 Bridge Street

Catasauqua, PA 18032

Phone (610)264-2755

Fax (610) 264-7292

 

**********Confidentiality Notice    **********

This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other

writings are confidential and are for the sole use of the intended

recipient(s) identified above.  This message may contain information

that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure

under applicable law, including the FTC Safeguard Rule and U.S.-EU Safe

Harbor Principles.  If you are the intended recipient, you are

responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data

integrity and security.  If the receiver of this information is not the

intended

recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for

delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any use, reading, dissemination, distribution, copying or

storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this information in error, please notify the sender by return

email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments from

your system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

See what's new at http://www.aol.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Amy,

 

I would attempt to answer your question, if only I could decipher it.

 

I don't do very well with extended cryptic metaphors.

 

If there is something about my position you would like me to

clarify, I will be happy to try. But, in order to do so, I think I

will need you to frame the question more concretely.

 

David Karchmer

 

-

In Chinese Medicine , Amyc144 wrote:

>

> Agree Mike,this post & all your previous ones. Very eloquently

expressed,

> indeed.

> Coming from a cautious, matured, well seasoned mind.

> Speaks of / from a solid learning/experiences in life.

> Deeply grateful for your time, tact, & patience.

>

> Can't resist the reply button any longer. Can slay me, but don't

pete me, I

> beg.

> Had doubled-up on Xioa Yao Wan b4 hitting the reply button.

> Effects should be in progress b4 hitting the send one.

>

> My question to David : Where do you see the WM cart at?

> Don't matter if the horse is behind the cart /vice versa.

> Where is it , David? You see it far from you,correct? That's

where you

> seek to be next to.

> And as well, you see OM cart very far behind, correct?

>

> Are you underwater or above the surface?

> If you're not, come up to the surface, take a few deep

breathes.

> You should feel better soon, and would know exactly where

you're at,

> and everybody else in your group. For you can not do this

alone.

> You need helpers! ( whole Om group)

>

> For if you insist to stay submerged, your disorientation

gets

> progressively worse,

> and could get fatal, not only for you, but for everybody

else on board.

>

> This will bring us to what Mike has said in his previous

post:

> " Why do you wish to bring our prof backward?

> We've worked so hard to be where we're at. "

>

> Next question: Have you really, really, truely, honestly

looked it over

> (WM cart)

> If you had, what did you see, David? All glitters! (only

glitters)

> If you have not seen it in it's truest form,

> Your vision has failed you. Look again. Start at the stats:

deaths/yr

> Then go back to the WM cart. Hopefully by this time, you'll

see " Humpty

> Dumpty "

> cleverly glued together & extensively glossed over.

> For many had abandoned that cart very much opposing " free

lunch. "

>

> Been there all my adult life.

> Have read all the writings on the walls many,many times over.

> Rest now my child, for tomorrow,

> there's still a lot of growing for you to do.

> " For life may not all be what it seems. "

> And not all that glitter is gold "

>

> I Love you still. Take

care.

>

>

 

> amy

>

>

>

> ************************************** See what's new at

http://www.aol.com

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

You ask, " I would like to hear where your studies show any

significant support for any board specialization in OM. "

 

Here are two sources:

 

Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that

poll:

 

54% Support Specialty Boards

36% Oppose Them

10% Aren't Sure

 

Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

date, here are the results of that poll:

 

77% Are in favor of specialization

23% Are opposed to specialization

 

Why are you so convinced that " the profession " is opposed to

specialization or Specialty Boards? I realize that these polls are

not scientific, but they both demonstrate support for the idea of

both specialization and specialty boards.

 

Why do you continue to insist that my views are in the minority when

the data clearly shows that the opposite is true?

 

To vote in the polls you can go to:

 

Acupuncture Today:

http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/home.php

 

Tools:

http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/poll/lets-just-make-this-

democratic-are-you-for-special

 

David Karchmer

 

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

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> David,

>

> You are right that there is a process but fail to understand the

issue of professional support and its importance to your

organizational success.

>

> I would like to hear where your studies show any significant

support for any board specialization in OM. The fact that negative

advertising was recently paid for by a group of concerned LAc over

this issue, I would beg to differ with your opinions about

acceptability.

>

> I ask TCM students, faculty and discuss this issue with other

practitioners in the metro area where I live. They would not be

against a future idea related to specialities but do not see it as a

good usage of time or resources now.

>

> Other then this, one of my other concerns is what training or

seminars is the exam based upon and why would someone pay to take an

exam when they can take these same open enrollment seminars and

advertise they are experts as well. I appreciate your dialogue but

sometimes what we each want is not the best thing for all of us.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, LAc

> _______________

> Gear up for Halo? 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It?

s our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live?.

> http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2

>

[Guest guest]

Here's another interesting poll published by Acupuncture Today.

 

Since there is so much speculation about what is good/bad,

important/not important to our profession, this poll seems

particularly apropos.

 

The poll question was:

 

What is the most important issue facing the acupuncture profession

in 2007?

 

Results:

 

44% Greater inclusion of acupuncture in managed care and ins. plans

25% Increased acceptance from other health care professions

12% Passage of acupuncture license laws in all 50 states

12% Increased research supporting the safety and efficacy of acup.

7% Improved cooperation between the leading national organizations

(eg. AAAOM, Acupuncture Allieance, etc.)

 

542 votes

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/acupuncturepoll/07archive/1_07.php

 

In an environment where much speculation exists as to what " the

profession " wants, I find these poll results to be instructive.

 

I see specialty boards as being very likely to contribute to items

# 1, 2, 4, and 5.

 

Item # 1: I see specialty boards as being a potential lobbying

voice, exerting leverage to have acupuncture included in managed and

insurance plans.

 

Item #2: I definately believe that specialty boards can help us to

gain more acceptance from other health care professions.

 

Item #4: In the case of the ABORM, one of its stated missions is to

further research efforts that examine ther the role of acupuncture

and OM in Reproductive Medicine.

 

Item #5 the ABORM, (Along with Ms. Ergil and Ms. Radice) has already

initiated joint coorperation between ABORM and the NCCAOM and AAAOM.

 

I have heard some voices in this discussion saying that Specialty

Boards are fine, but they best put off until a future time. Right

now, our profession faces much bigger challenges, and Specialty

Boards are merely a distraction to what is immediately important.

 

I think that a poll like this is useful because it demonstrates what

the members of our profession deem to be important issues. And,

although some of us differ in opinion about how specialty boards

will further or detract from these important issues, I for one see

them as an asset for achieving the things listed by this poll as

important.

 

David Karchmer

[Guest guest]

Sean,

 

I said that these results were instructive, but not conclusive. That

said, I would still argue that a poll of 542 votes is much better

data than a host of baseless claims that are not supported by data

of any kind.

 

David K.

 

Chinese Medicine , " Sean Doherty "

<sean wrote:

>

> " 542 votes

> http://www.acupunct

>

<http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/acupuncturepoll/07archive/1_07.php>

> uretoday.com/acupuncturepoll/07archive/1_07.php

>

> In an environment where much speculation exists as to what " the

> profession " wants, I find these poll results to be instructive. "

>

>

>

> So, 542 votes out of say 12000 acupuncturists, that is, what, less

than five

> percent.and with what kind of distribution across the profession?

>

>

>

> Instructive?

>

 

[Guest guest]

Kath,

 

Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that

poll:

 

54% Support Specialty Boards

36% Oppose Them

10% Aren't Sure

 

Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

date, here are the results of that poll:

 

77% Are in favor of specialization

23% Are opposed to specialization

 

Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

 

I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air like the following:

 

" i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that

i have not heard

anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe that

the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners "

 

To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty boards, not for my

personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my patients.

 

Regards,

 

Gordon.

 

On 9/25/07, wrote:

>

> marnae:

>

> i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the queries in my recent

> post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from hearing your views.

>

> A couple of things come to mind:

>

> 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can discussion this

> and other issues. it seems that in our digital age, setting up some

> discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to difficult.

> It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for many voices to be

> heard on various matters affecting the profession so that the

> organizations

> can know what's going on the in collective minds of the profession.

> 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at this point in

> time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is to develop DAOM

> programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine requiring advanced

> edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology, etc. it seems to me

> that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a progression of the

> advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm hearing about the

> three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they mostly serve for

> marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't see that as a

> legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM programs satisfy

> the need for additional edu and training, and for academic distinction of

> a

> particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both DAOM's and

> specialty boards at this point in the development of the TCM profession in

> the US.

> 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core need right

> now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective energy would be

> better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of acupuncture in this

> country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of TCM (herb bans,

> licensing in all 50 states).

> 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard

> two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does not

> practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that

> what

> i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i have not heard

> anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> that

> the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners in a

> particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the broader needs of

> the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of the profession,

> i

> would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not fertility acu's arguing

> for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are discussing

> changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM, that we must get

> beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look at what will best

> serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long term.

>

> all for now,

>

> kath

>

>

> On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae <marnae%40pobox.com>> wrote:

>

> > Kath -

> >

> > Let me respond to some of your points:

> >

> > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > respective training.

> > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> >

> > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > success speak for them.

> >

> > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > come into existence.

> >

> > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > something in marnae's post about

> > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > they would get a seat at

> > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> >

> > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > that we want to take.

> >

> > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > that specialty boards would be of

> > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > set up. what kind of

> > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > current west model, or do

> > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > of TCM in the US? "

> >

> > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > want.

> >

> > My two cents.

> >

> > Marnae

> >

> >

>

> --

>

> Oriental Medicine

> Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

>

> Asheville Center For

> 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> kbartlett <kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsheville.com>

> www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

>

>

[Guest guest]

David T,

 

I know that the topic of how such boards will be used/marketed, etc.

is an important issue for you, and that these polls do not address

your concerns.

 

I do not suggest that such polls are comprehensive, scientific, or

that they answer any of the broader quesitons facing our

profession's handling of specialty boards.

 

I only point to these polls as data that suggests a profession-wide

acceptance of specialization and specialty boards, and use that data

to contradict the extant arguments sugesting that the profession is

in broad opposition to specialty boards.

 

The data is what it is.

 

The individuals who espouse the opinion that there is some kind of

profession-wide consensus against specialty boards is just that -

individual's opinions. The only data I have seen comes from these

two polls, and what is suggested by this (albeit limited) data is

that the profession favors specialization and specialty boards.

 

Does anyone have any data to the contrary? I'd love to know about it

if it exists.

 

David Karchmer

 

 

-- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

>

> It would be nice if these " polls " defined what a specialty board

is

> and how it will be used.

>

> david

[Guest guest]

Gordon:

 

Please read posts more carefully before you accuse your colleagues. as i

clearly stated, i was referring to the conversations that have taken place

on this discussion group, not elsewhere in polls.

 

" it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard two

voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does not

practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that what

i have heard is a broad consensus against them. "

 

i would appreciate it if in the future you would please show more respect to

your colleagues in your posts, and drop the argumentative tone.

 

k

 

 

 

 

On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins wrote:

>

> Kath,

>

> Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that

> poll:

>

> 54% Support Specialty Boards

> 36% Oppose Them

> 10% Aren't Sure

>

> Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

> date, here are the results of that poll:

>

> 77% Are in favor of specialization

> 23% Are opposed to specialization

>

> Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

>

> I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air like the

> following:

>

> " i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus against them.

> that

> i have not heard

> anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> that

> the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners "

>

> To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty boards, not for my

> personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my patients.

>

> Regards,

>

> Gordon.

>

> On 9/25/07, <acukath<acukath%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> >

> > marnae:

> >

> > i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the queries in my

> recent

> > post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from hearing your views.

> >

> > A couple of things come to mind:

> >

> > 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can discussion this

> > and other issues. it seems that in our digital age, setting up some

> > discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to difficult.

> > It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for many voices to be

> > heard on various matters affecting the profession so that the

> > organizations

> > can know what's going on the in collective minds of the profession.

> > 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at this point in

> > time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is to develop

> DAOM

> > programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine requiring

> advanced

> > edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology, etc. it seems to

> me

> > that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a progression of the

> > advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm hearing about

> the

> > three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they mostly serve

> for

> > marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't see that as a

> > legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM programs

> satisfy

> > the need for additional edu and training, and for academic distinction

> of

> > a

> > particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both DAOM's and

> > specialty boards at this point in the development of the TCM profession

> in

> > the US.

> > 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core need right

> > now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective energy would be

> > better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of acupuncture in this

> > country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of TCM (herb

> bans,

> > licensing in all 50 states).

> > 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard

> > two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does

> not

> > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that

> > what

> > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i have not heard

> > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> > that

> > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners in a

> > particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the broader needs

> of

> > the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of the

> profession,

> > i

> > would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not fertility acu's

> arguing

> > for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are discussing

> > changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM, that we must

> get

> > beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look at what will

> best

> > serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long term.

> >

> > all for now,

> >

> > kath

> >

> >

> > On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae

<marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com>> wrote:

> >

> > > Kath -

> > >

> > > Let me respond to some of your points:

> > >

> > > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > > respective training.

> > > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> > >

> > > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > > success speak for them.

> > >

> > > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > > come into existence.

> > >

> > > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > > something in marnae's post about

> > > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > > they would get a seat at

> > > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> > >

> > > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > > that we want to take.

> > >

> > > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > > that specialty boards would be of

> > > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > > set up. what kind of

> > > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > > current west model, or do

> > > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > > of TCM in the US? "

> > >

> > > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > > want.

> > >

> > > My two cents.

> > >

> > > Marnae

> > >

> > >

> >

> > --

> >

> > Oriental Medicine

> > Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

> >

> > Asheville Center For

> > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> > Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> >

kbartlett<kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartle\

tt%40AcupunctureAsheville.com>

> > www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Kath,

 

I am extremely respectful of my colleagues, and it is not an argumentative

tone.

 

And yes, I see you wrote within this group, but this is more global, not

just this group. I'm not sure where you see disrespect and argument. But if

I have upset you, I am of course sorry for your upset. But you don't know

me, so please don't put tone to my writings, where there is none.

 

Respectfully,

 

Gordon.

 

On 9/25/07, wrote:

>

> Gordon:

>

> Please read posts more carefully before you accuse your colleagues. as i

> clearly stated, i was referring to the conversations that have taken place

> on this discussion group, not elsewhere in polls.

>

> " it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard two

> voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does not

> practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that

> what

> i have heard is a broad consensus against them. "

>

> i would appreciate it if in the future you would please show more respect

> to

> your colleagues in your posts, and drop the argumentative tone.

>

> k

>

> On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins

<gordon.mullins<gordon.mullins%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> >

> > Kath,

> >

> > Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that

> > poll:

> >

> > 54% Support Specialty Boards

> > 36% Oppose Them

> > 10% Aren't Sure

> >

> > Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

> > date, here are the results of that poll:

> >

> > 77% Are in favor of specialization

> > 23% Are opposed to specialization

> >

> > Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

> >

> > I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air like the

> > following:

> >

> > " i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus against them.

> > that

> > i have not heard

> > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> > that

> > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners "

> >

> > To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty boards, not for

> my

> > personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my patients.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Gordon.

> >

> > On 9/25/07, <acukath<acukath%40gmail.com>

> <acukath%40gmail.com>>

>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > marnae:

> > >

> > > i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the queries in my

> > recent

> > > post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from hearing your

> views.

> > >

> > > A couple of things come to mind:

> > >

> > > 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can discussion this

> > > and other issues. it seems that in our digital age, setting up some

> > > discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to difficult.

> > > It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for many voices to

> be

> > > heard on various matters affecting the profession so that the

> > > organizations

> > > can know what's going on the in collective minds of the profession.

> > > 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at this point in

> > > time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is to develop

> > DAOM

> > > programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine requiring

> > advanced

> > > edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology, etc. it seems

> to

> > me

> > > that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a progression of

> the

> > > advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm hearing about

> > the

> > > three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they mostly serve

> > for

> > > marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't see that as a

> > > legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM programs

> > satisfy

> > > the need for additional edu and training, and for academic distinction

> > of

> > > a

> > > particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both DAOM's and

> > > specialty boards at this point in the development of the TCM

> profession

> > in

> > > the US.

> > > 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core need right

> > > now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective energy would

> be

> > > better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of acupuncture in

> this

> > > country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of TCM (herb

> > bans,

> > > licensing in all 50 states).

> > > 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard

> > > two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does

> > not

> > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that

> > > what

> > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i have not heard

> > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> > > that

> > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners in a

> > > particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the broader needs

> > of

> > > the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of the

> > profession,

> > > i

> > > would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not fertility acu's

> > arguing

> > > for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are discussing

> > > changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM, that we must

> > get

> > > beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look at what will

> > best

> > > serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long term.

> > >

> > > all for now,

> > >

> > > kath

> > >

> > >

> > > On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae

<marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%

> 40pobox.com>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Kath -

> > > >

> > > > Let me respond to some of your points:

> > > >

> > > > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > > > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > > > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > > > respective training.

> > > > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> > > >

> > > > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > > > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > > > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > > > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > > > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > > > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > > > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > > > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > > > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > > > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > > > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > > > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > > > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > > > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > > > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > > > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > > > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > > > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > > > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > > > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > > > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > > > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > > > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > > > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > > > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > > > success speak for them.

> > > >

> > > > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > > > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > > > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > > > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > > > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > > > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > > > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > > > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > > > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > > > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > > > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > > > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > > > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > > > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > > > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > > > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > > > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > > > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > > > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > > > come into existence.

> > > >

> > > > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > > > something in marnae's post about

> > > > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > > > they would get a seat at

> > > > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> > > >

> > > > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > > > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > > > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > > > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > > > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > > > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > > > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > > > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > > > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > > > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > > > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > > > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > > > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > > > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > > > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > > > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > > > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > > > that we want to take.

> > > >

> > > > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > > > that specialty boards would be of

> > > > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > > > set up. what kind of

> > > > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > > > current west model, or do

> > > > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > > > of TCM in the US? "

> > > >

> > > > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > > > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > > > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > > > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > > > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > > > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > > > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > > > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > > > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > > > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > > > want.

> > > >

> > > > My two cents.

> > > >

> > > > Marnae

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > --

> > >

> > > Oriental Medicine

> > > Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

> > >

> > > Asheville Center For

> > > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> > > Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> > > kbartlett<kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsheville.com>

> <kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsh

> eville.com>

> > > www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Kath,

 

You have to admit though the findings of the polls are quite interesting (So

far). It does seem to show a very defined split on views. And there are

definite lines drawn between those that believe in the positive aspects of

having specialty boards and those that are against. Now if this is a smaller

representation of a bigger picture of our profession, then specialty boards

are what our profession want, and we have to respect that.

 

Gordon.

 

On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins wrote:

>

> Kath,

>

> I am extremely respectful of my colleagues, and it is not an argumentative

> tone.

>

> And yes, I see you wrote within this group, but this is more global, not

> just this group. I'm not sure where you see disrespect and argument. But if

> I have upset you, I am of course sorry for your upset. But you don't know

> me, so please don't put tone to my writings, where there is none.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Gordon.

>

> On 9/25/07, wrote:

>

> > Gordon:

> >

> > Please read posts more carefully before you accuse your colleagues. as i

> > clearly stated, i was referring to the conversations that have taken

> > place

> > on this discussion group, not elsewhere in polls.

> >

> > " it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only heard two

> > voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one does not

> > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say that

> > what

> > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. "

> >

> > i would appreciate it if in the future you would please show more

> > respect to

> > your colleagues in your posts, and drop the argumentative tone.

> >

> > k

> >

> > On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins

<gordon.mullins<gordon.mullins%40gmail.com>>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Kath,

> > >

> > > Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that

> > > poll:

> > >

> > > 54% Support Specialty Boards

> > > 36% Oppose Them

> > > 10% Aren't Sure

> > >

> > > Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

> > > date, here are the results of that poll:

> > >

> > > 77% Are in favor of specialization

> > > 23% Are opposed to specialization

> > >

> > > Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

> > >

> > > I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air like the

> > > following:

> > >

> > > " i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus against them.

> > > that

> > > i have not heard

> > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to believe

> > > that

> > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners "

> > >

> > > To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty boards, not for

> > my

> > > personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my patients.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Gordon.

> > >

> > > On 9/25/07, <acukath<acukath%40gmail.com>

> > <acukath%40gmail.com>>

> >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > marnae:

> > > >

> > > > i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the queries in my

> > > recent

> > > > post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from hearing your

> > views.

> > > >

> > > > A couple of things come to mind:

> > > >

> > > > 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can discussion

> > this

> > > > and other issues. it seems that in our digital age, setting up some

> > > > discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to

> > difficult.

> > > > It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for many voices

> > to be

> > > > heard on various matters affecting the profession so that the

> > > > organizations

> > > > can know what's going on the in collective minds of the profession.

> > > > 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at this point

> > in

> > > > time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is to

> > develop

> > > DAOM

> > > > programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine requiring

> > > advanced

> > > > edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology, etc. it seems

> > to

> > > me

> > > > that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a progression of

> > the

> > > > advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm hearing

> > about

> > > the

> > > > three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they mostly

> > serve

> > > for

> > > > marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't see that as

> > a

> > > > legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM programs

> > > satisfy

> > > > the need for additional edu and training, and for academic

> > distinction

> > > of

> > > > a

> > > > particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both DAOM's and

> > > > specialty boards at this point in the development of the TCM

> > profession

> > > in

> > > > the US.

> > > > 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core need

> > right

> > > > now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective energy

> > would be

> > > > better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of acupuncture in

> > this

> > > > country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of TCM (herb

> > > bans,

> > > > licensing in all 50 states).

> > > > 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only

> > heard

> > > > two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one

> > does

> > > not

> > > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would say

> > that

> > > > what

> > > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i have not

> > heard

> > > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me to

> > believe

> > > > that

> > > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of practitioners in a

> > > > particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the broader

> > needs

> > > of

> > > > the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of the

> > > profession,

> > > > i

> > > > would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not fertility acu's

> > > arguing

> > > > for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are

> > discussing

> > > > changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM, that we

> > must

> > > get

> > > > beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look at what

> > will

> > > best

> > > > serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long term.

> > > >

> > > > all for now,

> > > >

> > > > kath

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae

<marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com>>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Kath -

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me respond to some of your points:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > > > > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > > > > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > > > > respective training.

> > > > > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> > > > >

> > > > > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > > > > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > > > > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > > > > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > > > > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > > > > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > > > > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > > > > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > > > > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > > > > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > > > > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > > > > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > > > > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > > > > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > > > > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > > > > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > > > > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > > > > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > > > > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > > > > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > > > > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > > > > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > > > > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > > > > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > > > > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > > > > success speak for them.

> > > > >

> > > > > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > > > > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > > > > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > > > > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > > > > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > > > > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > > > > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > > > > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > > > > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > > > > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > > > > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > > > > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > > > > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > > > > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > > > > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > > > > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > > > > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > > > > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > > > > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > > > > come into existence.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > > > > something in marnae's post about

> > > > > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > > > > they would get a seat at

> > > > > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> > > > >

> > > > > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > > > > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > > > > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > > > > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > > > > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > > > > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > > > > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > > > > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > > > > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > > > > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > > > > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > > > > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > > > > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > > > > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > > > > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > > > > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > > > > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > > > > that we want to take.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > > > > that specialty boards would be of

> > > > > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > > > > set up. what kind of

> > > > > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > > > > current west model, or do

> > > > > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > > > > of TCM in the US? "

> > > > >

> > > > > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > > > > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > > > > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > > > > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > > > > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > > > > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > > > > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > > > > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > > > > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > > > > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > > > > want.

> > > > >

> > > > > My two cents.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marnae

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > >

> > > > Oriental Medicine

> > > > Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

> > > >

> > > > Asheville Center For

> > > > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> > > > Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> > > >

kbartlett<kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartle\

tt%40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsh

> > eville.com>

> > > > www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

David T,

 

Then surely you give no meaning at all to claims that a majority of

acupucuncture professionals oppose specialty boards, as these claims

have no data of any kind to support them.

 

Is that your position?

 

David K.

 

 

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> Their is no varification that voters are acupuncturists, and we

dont

> know if people revote, so I would not give much meaning to the

polls.

>

> david

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , " Gordon

> Mullins " <gordon.mullins@> wrote:

> >

> > Kath,

> >

> > You have to admit though the findings of the polls are quite

> interesting (So

> > far). It does seem to show a very defined split on views. And

> there are

> > definite lines drawn between those that believe in the positive

> aspects of

> > having specialty boards and those that are against. Now if this

is

> a smaller

> > representation of a bigger picture of our profession, then

> specialty boards

> > are what our profession want, and we have to respect that.

> >

> > Gordon.

> >

> > On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Kath,

> > >

> > > I am extremely respectful of my colleagues, and it is not an

> argumentative

> > > tone.

> > >

> > > And yes, I see you wrote within this group, but this is more

> global, not

> > > just this group. I'm not sure where you see disrespect and

> argument. But if

> > > I have upset you, I am of course sorry for your upset. But you

> don't know

> > > me, so please don't put tone to my writings, where there is

none.

> > >

> > > Respectfully,

> > >

> > > Gordon.

> > >

> > > On 9/25/07, <acukath@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Gordon:

> > > >

> > > > Please read posts more carefully before you accuse your

> colleagues. as i

> > > > clearly stated, i was referring to the conversations that

have

> taken

> > > > place

> > > > on this discussion group, not elsewhere in polls.

> > > >

> > > > " it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have

only

> heard two

> > > > voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's,

one

> does not

> > > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i

would

> say that

> > > > what

> > > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. "

> > > >

> > > > i would appreciate it if in the future you would please show

> more

> > > > respect to

> > > > your colleagues in your posts, and drop the argumentative

tone.

> > > >

> > > > k

> > > >

> > > > On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins@<gordon.mullins%

> 40gmail.com>>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Kath,

> > > > >

> > > > > Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So

far

> in that

> > > > > poll:

> > > > >

> > > > > 54% Support Specialty Boards

> > > > > 36% Oppose Them

> > > > > 10% Aren't Sure

> > > > >

> > > > > Tools is also running a poll on the

> subject. To

> > > > > date, here are the results of that poll:

> > > > >

> > > > > 77% Are in favor of specialization

> > > > > 23% Are opposed to specialization

> > > > >

> > > > > Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air

like

> the

> > > > > following:

> > > > >

> > > > > " i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus

> against them.

> > > > > that

> > > > > i have not heard

> > > > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads

me

> to believe

> > > > > that

> > > > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of

> practitioners "

> > > > >

> > > > > To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty

> boards, not for

> > > > my

> > > > > personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my

> patients.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Gordon.

> > > > >

> > > > > On 9/25/07, <acukath@<acukath%

> 40gmail.com>

> > > > <acukath%40gmail.com>>

> > > >

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > marnae:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the

> queries in my

> > > > > recent

> > > > > > post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from

> hearing your

> > > > views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A couple of things come to mind:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can

> discussion

> > > > this

> > > > > > and other issues. it seems that in our digital age,

> setting up some

> > > > > > discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be

to

> > > > difficult.

> > > > > > It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for

> many voices

> > > > to be

> > > > > > heard on various matters affecting the profession so

that

> the

> > > > > > organizations

> > > > > > can know what's going on the in collective minds of the

> profession.

> > > > > > 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at

> this point

> > > > in

> > > > > > time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me

is

> to

> > > > develop

> > > > > DAOM

> > > > > > programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine

> requiring

> > > > > advanced

> > > > > > edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology,

> etc. it seems

> > > > to

> > > > > me

> > > > > > that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a

> progression of

> > > > the

> > > > > > advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm

> hearing

> > > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they

> mostly

> > > > serve

> > > > > for

> > > > > > marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't

> see that as

> > > > a

> > > > > > legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the

DAOM

> programs

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > the need for additional edu and training, and for

academic

> > > > distinction

> > > > > of

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both

> DAOM's and

> > > > > > specialty boards at this point in the development of the

> TCM

> > > > profession

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the US.

> > > > > > 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a

core

> need

> > > > right

> > > > > > now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective

> energy

> > > > would be

> > > > > > better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of

> acupuncture in

> > > > this

> > > > > > country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice

of

> TCM (herb

> > > > > bans,

> > > > > > licensing in all 50 states).

> > > > > > 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i

> have only

> > > > heard

> > > > > > two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility

> acu's, one

> > > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i

> would say

> > > > that

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i

> have not

> > > > heard

> > > > > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads

> me to

> > > > believe

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of

> practitioners in a

> > > > > > particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the

> broader

> > > > needs

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the profession. if they were serving the broader needs

of

> the

> > > > > profession,

> > > > > > i

> > > > > > would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not

> fertility acu's

> > > > > arguing

> > > > > > for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we

are

> > > > discussing

> > > > > > changes that affect the landscape of the practice of

TCM,

> that we

> > > > must

> > > > > get

> > > > > > beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look

> at what

> > > > will

> > > > > best

> > > > > > serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long

> term.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > all for now,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > kath

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae@ <marnae%

> 40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com>>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let me respond to some of your points:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > > > > > > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > > > > > > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > > > > > > respective training.

> > > > > > > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > > > > > > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > > > > > > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > > > > > > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > > > > > > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > > > > > > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > > > > > > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > > > > > > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > > > > > > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > > > > > > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > > > > > > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > > > > > > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > > > > > > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > > > > > > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > > > > > > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > > > > > > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > > > > > > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > > > > > > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > > > > > > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > > > > > > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > > > > > > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > > > > > > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > > > > > > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > > > > > > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > > > > > > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > > > > > > success speak for them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > > > > > > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > > > > > > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > > > > > > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > > > > > > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > > > > > > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > > > > > > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > > > > > > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > > > > > > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > > > > > > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > > > > > > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > > > > > > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > > > > > > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > > > > > > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > > > > > > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > > > > > > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > > > > > > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > > > > > > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > > > > > > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > > > > > > come into existence.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > > > > > > something in marnae's post about

> > > > > > > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > > > > > > they would get a seat at

> > > > > > > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > > > > > > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > > > > > > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > > > > > > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > > > > > > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > > > > > > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > > > > > > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > > > > > > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > > > > > > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > > > > > > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > > > > > > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > > > > > > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > > > > > > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > > > > > > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > > > > > > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > > > > > > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > > > > > > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > > > > > > that we want to take.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > > > > > > that specialty boards would be of

> > > > > > > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > > > > > > set up. what kind of

> > > > > > > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > > > > > > current west model, or do

> > > > > > > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > > > > > > of TCM in the US? "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > > > > > > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > > > > > > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > > > > > > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > > > > > > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > > > > > > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > > > > > > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > > > > > > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > > > > > > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > > > > > > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > > > > > > want.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > My two cents.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Marnae

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oriental Medicine

> > > > > > Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Asheville Center For

> > > > > > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> > > > > > Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> > > > > > kbartlett@<kbartlett%

> 40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%

> 40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsh

> > > > eville.com>

> > > > > > www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

David,

You are over analyzing the poll results and taking its results out of context.

They

do not mention specialty programs anywhere. I have looked.

 

You might also want to re-examine your facts. Caroline Radice, LAc and Marnae

Ergil, LAc

are two the first three names on the letter opposing ABORM. Mike W. Bowser, L

Ac

 

 

: acuprof:

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:00:56 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

 

Here's another interesting poll published by Acupuncture Today.Since there is so

much speculation about what is good/bad, important/not important to our

profession, this poll seems particularly apropos.The poll question was:What is

the most important issue facing the acupuncture profession in 2007?Results:44%

Greater inclusion of acupuncture in managed care and ins. plans25% Increased

acceptance from other health care professions12% Passage of acupuncture license

laws in all 50 states12% Increased research supporting the safety and efficacy

of acup. 7% Improved cooperation between the leading national organizations (eg.

AAAOM, Acupuncture Allieance, etc.)542 votes

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/acupuncturepoll/07archive/1_07.phpIn an

environment where much speculation exists as to what " the profession " wants, I

find these poll results to be instructive.I see specialty boards as being very

likely to contribute to items # 1, 2, 4, and 5.Item # 1: I see specialty boards

as being a potential lobbying voice, exerting leverage to have acupuncture

included in managed and insurance plans.Item #2: I definately believe that

specialty boards can help us to gain more acceptance from other health care

professions.Item #4: In the case of the ABORM, one of its stated missions is to

further research efforts that examine ther the role of acupuncture and OM in

Reproductive Medicine.Item #5 the ABORM, (Along with Ms. Ergil and Ms. Radice)

has already initiated joint coorperation between ABORM and the NCCAOM and

AAAOM.I have heard some voices in this discussion saying that Specialty Boards

are fine, but they best put off until a future time. Right now, our profession

faces much bigger challenges, and Specialty Boards are merely a distraction to

what is immediately important.I think that a poll like this is useful because it

demonstrates what the members of our profession deem to be important issues.

And, although some of us differ in opinion about how specialty boards will

further or detract from these important issues, I for one see them as an asset

for achieving the things listed by this poll as important.David Karchmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

More photos; more messages; more whatever – Get MORE with Windows Live™

Hotmail®. NOW with 5GB storage.

http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM\

_mini_5G_0907

 

 

[Guest guest]

I give up......

 

: -)

 

 

On 9/25/07, flyingstarsfengshui <flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> Their is no varification that voters are acupuncturists, and we dont

> know if people revote, so I would not give much meaning to the polls.

>

> david

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " Gordon

> Mullins " <gordon.mullins wrote:

> >

> > Kath,

> >

> > You have to admit though the findings of the polls are quite

> interesting (So

> > far). It does seem to show a very defined split on views. And

> there are

> > definite lines drawn between those that believe in the positive

> aspects of

> > having specialty boards and those that are against. Now if this is

> a smaller

> > representation of a bigger picture of our profession, then

> specialty boards

> > are what our profession want, and we have to respect that.

> >

> > Gordon.

> >

> > On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins wrote:

> > >

> > > Kath,

> > >

> > > I am extremely respectful of my colleagues, and it is not an

> argumentative

> > > tone.

> > >

> > > And yes, I see you wrote within this group, but this is more

> global, not

> > > just this group. I'm not sure where you see disrespect and

> argument. But if

> > > I have upset you, I am of course sorry for your upset. But you

> don't know

> > > me, so please don't put tone to my writings, where there is none.

> > >

> > > Respectfully,

> > >

> > > Gordon.

> > >

> > > On 9/25/07, wrote:

> > >

> > > > Gordon:

> > > >

> > > > Please read posts more carefully before you accuse your

> colleagues. as i

> > > > clearly stated, i was referring to the conversations that have

> taken

> > > > place

> > > > on this discussion group, not elsewhere in polls.

> > > >

> > > > " it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i have only

> heard two

> > > > voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility acu's, one

> does not

> > > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i would

> say that

> > > > what

> > > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. "

> > > >

> > > > i would appreciate it if in the future you would please show

> more

> > > > respect to

> > > > your colleagues in your posts, and drop the argumentative tone.

> > > >

> > > > k

> > > >

> > > > On 9/25/07, Gordon Mullins <gordon.mullins<gordon.mullins%

> 40gmail.com>>

>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Kath,

> > > > >

> > > > > Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far

> in that

> > > > > poll:

> > > > >

> > > > > 54% Support Specialty Boards

> > > > > 36% Oppose Them

> > > > > 10% Aren't Sure

> > > > >

> > > > > Tools is also running a poll on the

> subject. To

> > > > > date, here are the results of that poll:

> > > > >

> > > > > 77% Are in favor of specialization

> > > > > 23% Are opposed to specialization

> > > > >

> > > > > Seems to me your arguments are invalid..

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't think you should make assumptions from thin air like

> the

> > > > > following:

> > > > >

> > > > > " i would say that what i have heard is a broad consensus

> against them.

> > > > > that

> > > > > i have not heard

> > > > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads me

> to believe

> > > > > that

> > > > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of

> practitioners "

> > > > >

> > > > > To me I firmly believe in the development of specialty

> boards, not for

> > > > my

> > > > > personal needs as you state, but for the needs of my

> patients.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Gordon.

> > > > >

> > > > > On 9/25/07, <acukath<acukath%

> 40gmail.com>

> > > > <acukath%40gmail.com>>

> > > >

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > marnae:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i appreciate that you took the time to respond to the

> queries in my

> > > > > recent

> > > > > > post. Your response is insightful. I learn much from

> hearing your

> > > > views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A couple of things come to mind:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. i like the idea of a site where the profession can

> discussion

> > > > this

> > > > > > and other issues. it seems that in our digital age,

> setting up some

> > > > > > discussion groups for these kinds of issues shouldn't be to

> > > > difficult.

> > > > > > It is an effective way to provide a think tank and for

> many voices

> > > > to be

> > > > > > heard on various matters affecting the profession so that

> the

> > > > > > organizations

> > > > > > can know what's going on the in collective minds of the

> profession.

> > > > > > 2. in thinking more about specialties, their presence at

> this point

> > > > in

> > > > > > time seems premature to me. what makes more sense to me is

> to

> > > > develop

> > > > > DAOM

> > > > > > programs in various disciplines within chinese medicine

> requiring

> > > > > advanced

> > > > > > edu: dermatology, gyn/fertility, pediatrics, oncology,

> etc. it seems

> > > > to

> > > > > me

> > > > > > that specialties (if we need them at all) would be a

> progression of

> > > > the

> > > > > > advanced training offered in the DAOM programs. what i'm

> hearing

> > > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > three 'specialty boards' in play at present is that they

> mostly

> > > > serve

> > > > > for

> > > > > > marketing purposes of individual practitioners. i don't

> see that as

> > > > a

> > > > > > legitimate purpose of specialties. it seems that the DAOM

> programs

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > the need for additional edu and training, and for academic

> > > > distinction

> > > > > of

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > particular field within TCM. i don't see a need for both

> DAOM's and

> > > > > > specialty boards at this point in the development of the

> TCM

> > > > profession

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the US.

> > > > > > 3. It does not seem to me that specialty boards are a core

> need

> > > > right

> > > > > > now for the profession. rather, i believe our collective

> energy

> > > > would be

> > > > > > better spent working on gaining broad acceptance of

> acupuncture in

> > > > this

> > > > > > country, and other pertinent issues facing the practice of

> TCM (herb

> > > > > bans,

> > > > > > licensing in all 50 states).

> > > > > > 4. it seems, at least on this discussion group, that i

> have only

> > > > heard

> > > > > > two voices arguing for specialties. both are fertility

> acu's, one

> > > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > practice in the US. therefore, at least on this site, i

> would say

> > > > that

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > i have heard is a broad consensus against them. that i

> have not

> > > > heard

> > > > > > anyone who is not a fertility acu arguing for them leads

> me to

> > > > believe

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > the board's mostly serve the individual needs of

> practitioners in a

> > > > > > particular discipline within TCM, and does not serve the

> broader

> > > > needs

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the profession. if they were serving the broader needs of

> the

> > > > > profession,

> > > > > > i

> > > > > > would have expected to hear from LAc's who are not

> fertility acu's

> > > > > arguing

> > > > > > for the need of the specialty boards. i believe when we are

> > > > discussing

> > > > > > changes that affect the landscape of the practice of TCM,

> that we

> > > > must

> > > > > get

> > > > > > beyond our personal needs in the present moment and look

> at what

> > > > will

> > > > > best

> > > > > > serve the practice of TCM for the profession in the long

> term.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > all for now,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > kath

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 9/22/07, marnae ergil <marnae <marnae%

> 40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com><marnae%40pobox.com>>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let me respond to some of your points:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

> > > > > > > discussion is whether we need specialty

> > > > > > > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

> > > > > > > respective training.

> > > > > > > what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

> > > > > > > question that must be addressed. As I have said

> > > > > > > before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

> > > > > > > I have done a great deal of study to gain more

> > > > > > > knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

> > > > > > > (including but not limited to infertility),

> > > > > > > dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

> > > > > > > in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

> > > > > > > the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

> > > > > > > treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

> > > > > > > practice in China, I think that we need to look very

> > > > > > > carefully at that model before we decide that we want

> > > > > > > to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

> > > > > > > medicine very differently in this country (in the

> > > > > > > West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

> > > > > > > part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

> > > > > > > not treating the same number of patients as are

> > > > > > > treated in China and so we do not have the same time

> > > > > > > restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

> > > > > > > in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

> > > > > > > specialize because we would not have time to do the

> > > > > > > work to effectively treat our patients. If others

> > > > > > > want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

> > > > > > > or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

> > > > > > > should do that, and let their experience and their

> > > > > > > success speak for them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

> > > > > > > ever be required in order to practice within that

> > > > > > > specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

> > > > > > > perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

> > > > > > > very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

> > > > > > > ability to take any patient, no matter what their

> > > > > > > biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

> > > > > > > signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

> > > > > > > presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

> > > > > > > need to know and understand the presenting condition.

> > > > > > > Absolutely not. Is there important information about

> > > > > > > any field that a generalist might not know.

> > > > > > > Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

> > > > > > > profession, would know when we need more information,

> > > > > > > and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

> > > > > > > to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

> > > > > > > taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

> > > > > > > identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

> > > > > > > unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

> > > > > > > come into existence.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

> > > > > > > something in marnae's post about

> > > > > > > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

> > > > > > > they would get a seat at

> > > > > > > the table or why they would be an invited guest.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The reason the insurance companies were included in

> > > > > > > the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

> > > > > > > begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

> > > > > > > risk and what the development of specialty boards

> > > > > > > would mean to the insurance company. There is a

> > > > > > > general feeling among many of us, myself included,

> > > > > > > that the malpractice companies would jump at the

> > > > > > > chance to require specialty exams in order to have

> > > > > > > continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

> > > > > > > do not know that this is true and we would like to

> > > > > > > hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

> > > > > > > this. At this time, there are basically only 2

> > > > > > > companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

> > > > > > > Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

> > > > > > > they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

> > > > > > > might have an influence on the profession in terms of

> > > > > > > deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

> > > > > > > that we want to take.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

> > > > > > > that specialty boards would be of

> > > > > > > value, then we need to determine how they should be

> > > > > > > set up. what kind of

> > > > > > > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

> > > > > > > current west model, or do

> > > > > > > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

> > > > > > > of TCM in the US? "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

> > > > > > > needs to be answered in relation to the first question

> > > > > > > about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

> > > > > > > currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

> > > > > > > in existence in our field and there is basically

> > > > > > > nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

> > > > > > > will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

> > > > > > > exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

> > > > > > > will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

> > > > > > > figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

> > > > > > > want.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > My two cents.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Marnae

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oriental Medicine

> > > > > > Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Asheville Center For

> > > > > > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> > > > > > Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> > > > > > kbartlett<kbartlett%

> 40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%

> 40AcupunctureAsheville.com><kbartlett%40AcupunctureAsh

> > > > eville.com>

> > > > > > www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

David,

 

Excellent question. I am for learning and think our profession has trouble

treating

pain/ortho disorders as well as communicating with other providers but am

against

the idea of it being a board specialty as it violates many of the conflict of

interest

issues that have been previously mentioned. Whew, too long a sentence. Mike W.

Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Capture your memories in an online journal!

http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

 

 

[Guest guest]

David, Are you kidding me? You might want to look at your sample sizes before

you start usingthis as evidence. I noticed that 166 on AT and 36 on CMT voted

for the idea of specialtycertification. First, voting for an idea is not the

same as voting for its execution. Second,I know of many practitioners who do

not vote on these informal polls so this is not a reliablesource. So, I guess

you do not have any then. I would think that this would be the first

to start by asking all of us to participate. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

: acuprof:

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:32:53 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

Mike,You ask, " I would like to hear where your studies show any significant

support for any board specialization in OM. " Here are two sources:Acupuncture

Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far in that poll: 54% Support

Specialty Boards36% Oppose Them10% Aren't Sure Tools is also

running a poll on the subject. To date, here are the results of that poll:77%

Are in favor of specialization23% Are opposed to specializationWhy are you so

convinced that " the profession " is opposed to specialization or Specialty

Boards? I realize that these polls are not scientific, but they both demonstrate

support for the idea of both specialization and specialty boards.Why do you

continue to insist that my views are in the minority when the data clearly shows

that the opposite is true?To vote in the polls you can go to:Acupuncture Today:

http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/home.phpChinese Medicine Tools:

http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/poll/lets-just-make-this-democratic-are-you-\

for-specialDavid

Karchmer********************************************************--- In

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1

wrote:>> > David, > > You are right that there is a process but fail to

understand the issue of professional support and its importance to your

organizational success. > > I would like to hear where your studies show any

significant support for any board specialization in OM. The fact that negative

advertising was recently paid for by a group of concerned LAc over this issue, I

would beg to differ with your opinions about acceptability. > > I ask TCM

students, faculty and discuss this issue with other practitioners in the metro

area where I live. They would not be against a future idea related to

specialities but do not see it as a good usage of time or resources now. > >

Other then this, one of my other concerns is what training or seminars is the

exam based upon and why would someone pay to take an exam when they can take

these same open enrollment seminars and advertise they are experts as well. I

appreciate your dialogue but sometimes what we each want is not the best thing

for all of us. > > Mike W. Bowser, LAc>

________> Gear up for Halo? 3

with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It?s our way of saying thanks for

using Windows Live?.> http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2>

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Can you find the hidden words?  Take a break and play Seekadoo!

http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

I am responding to your claims that

 

a) It is not timely to roll our specialty boards right now, because

there are more important issues facing our profession

 

b)There is a majority of acupuncture professionals who oppose the

formation of specialty boards, and that those who favor them are in

a decided minority.

 

In the first case, I cite the poll by AT called, " What is the most

important issue facing the acupuncture profession in 2007? "

 

Based on the results of this poll, I don't see anything on the list

of concerns held by our profession that conflicts with the formation

of specialty boards. In so much as this specific poll does not

mention specialty boards, you are right. But I do not see any reason

that one should believe your claims that the formation of specialty

boards detracts from the important issues facing our profession. In

fact, I think the opposite argument could be advanced just as

legitimately; namely, that the formation and presence of strong and

active specialty boards could very well serve to further the core

interests of the profession.

 

The second group of polls in question deal directly with the

perceived value of specialization and specialty boards. In both of

the polls I cite, a clear majority of voters favors both

specialization and specialty boards. This is in stark contrast to

your claims that a majority of acupuncture professionals oppose the

formation of such boards.

 

You suggest that " I might also want to re-examine my facts, " but at

least I have facts to examine and re-examine!

 

I have not seen any facts or data of any kind whatsoever that

supports the claims that specialty boards are only desired by a self-

serving minority.

 

Can you point out which facts you feel I have mistaken?

 

David Karchmer

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> David,

> You are over analyzing the poll results and taking its results out

of context. They

> do not mention specialty programs anywhere. I have looked.

>

> You might also want to re-examine your facts. Caroline Radice,

LAc and Marnae Ergil, LAc

> are two the first three names on the letter opposing ABORM. Mike

W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

> : acuprof: Tue, 25 Sep

2007 19:00:56 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

>

>

> Here's another interesting poll published by Acupuncture

Today.Since there is so much speculation about what is good/bad,

important/not important to our profession, this poll seems

particularly apropos.The poll question was:What is the most

important issue facing the acupuncture profession in 2007?

Results:44% Greater inclusion of acupuncture in managed care and

ins. plans25% Increased acceptance from other health care

professions12% Passage of acupuncture license laws in all 50

states12% Increased research supporting the safety and efficacy of

acup. 7% Improved cooperation between the leading national

organizations (eg. AAAOM, Acupuncture Allieance, etc.)542 votes

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/acupuncturepoll/07archive/1_07.phpIn

an environment where much speculation exists as to what " the

profession " wants, I find these poll results to be instructive.I see

specialty boards as being very likely to contribute to items # 1, 2,

4, and 5.Item # 1: I see specialty boards as being a potential

lobbying voice, exerting leverage to have acupuncture included in

managed and insurance plans.Item #2: I definately believe that

specialty boards can help us to gain more acceptance from other

health care professions.Item #4: In the case of the ABORM, one of

its stated missions is to further research efforts that examine ther

the role of acupuncture and OM in Reproductive Medicine.Item #5 the

ABORM, (Along with Ms. Ergil and Ms. Radice) has already initiated

joint coorperation between ABORM and the NCCAOM and AAAOM.I have

heard some voices in this discussion saying that Specialty Boards

are fine, but they best put off until a future time. Right now, our

profession faces much bigger challenges, and Specialty Boards are

merely a distraction to what is immediately important.I think that a

poll like this is useful because it demonstrates what the members of

our profession deem to be important issues. And, although some of us

differ in opinion about how specialty boards will further or detract

from these important issues, I for one see them as an asset for

achieving the things listed by this poll as important.David Karchmer

_______________

> More photos; more messages; more whatever ? Get MORE with Windows

Live? Hotmail?. NOW with 5GB storage.

> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-

us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_5G_0907

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

I have stated repeatedly: These polls are not comprehensive, and

they are not scientific. I do not point to them as a definitive

source of public opinion on this matter.

 

Yet, they are something, and they do provide some data. This stands

in sharp contrast to your claims, which have no data at all, and not

one single shred of evidence behind them other than claims based on

personal opinion or anectdote.

 

You asked me to provide you some evidence, and I did.

 

Then you dismiss it as invalid, and still assert that your postition

better represents a majority of acupuncture professionals.

 

I have to call your bluff, Mike.

 

Where is your evidence? Other than your own strong feelings, what

basis do you have for your claims?

 

David K.

 

***************************************************************8

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> David, Are you kidding me? You might want to look at your sample

sizes before you start usingthis as evidence. I noticed that 166 on

AT and 36 on CMT voted for the idea of specialtycertification.

First, voting for an idea is not the same as voting for its

execution. Second,I know of many practitioners who do not vote on

these informal polls so this is not a reliablesource. So, I guess

you do not have any then. I would think that this would be the

first

> to start by asking all of us to participate. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

> : acuprof: Tue, 25 Sep

2007 18:32:53 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

>

> Mike,You ask, " I would like to hear where your studies show any

significant support for any board specialization in OM. " Here are two

sources:Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this subject. So far

in that poll: 54% Support Specialty Boards36% Oppose Them10% Aren't

Sure Tools is also running a poll on the subject. To

date, here are the results of that poll:77% Are in favor of

specialization23% Are opposed to specializationWhy are you so

convinced that " the profession " is opposed to specialization or

Specialty Boards? I realize that these polls are not scientific, but

they both demonstrate support for the idea of both specialization

and specialty boards.Why do you continue to insist that my views are

in the minority when the data clearly shows that the opposite is

true?To vote in the polls you can go to:Acupuncture Today:

http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/home.phpChinese Medicine

Tools: http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/poll/lets-just-make-this-

democratic-are-you-for-specialDavid

Karchmer********************************************************---

In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:>> > David, > > You are right that there is a

process but fail to understand the issue of professional support and

its importance to your organizational success. > > I would like to

hear where your studies show any significant support for any board

specialization in OM. The fact that negative advertising was

recently paid for by a group of concerned LAc over this issue, I

would beg to differ with your opinions about acceptability. > > I

ask TCM students, faculty and discuss this issue with other

practitioners in the metro area where I live. They would not be

against a future idea related to specialities but do not see it as a

good usage of time or resources now. > > Other then this, one of my

other concerns is what training or seminars is the exam based upon

and why would someone pay to take an exam when they can take these

same open enrollment seminars and advertise they are experts as

well. I appreciate your dialogue but sometimes what we each want is

not the best thing for all of us. > > Mike W. Bowser, LAc>

________> Gear up

for Halo? 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It?s our way

of saying thanks for using Windows Live?.> http://gethalo3gear.com?

ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2>

_______________

> Can you find the hidden words?? Take a break and play Seekadoo!

> http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink

>

>

[Guest guest]

David,

 

You mean to say that you have something of proof and my experience is nothing?

Right now you and I are on the same level with proof. You have nothing as well.

I was interested in something legit not this AT opinion poll stuff. Got

anything else?Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

: acuprof:

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:08:30 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

 

Mike,I have stated repeatedly: These polls are not comprehensive, and they are

not scientific. I do not point to them as a definitive source of public opinion

on this matter.Yet, they are something, and they do provide some data. This

stands in sharp contrast to your claims, which have no data at all, and not one

single shred of evidence behind them other than claims based on personal opinion

or anectdote.You asked me to provide you some evidence, and I did.Then you

dismiss it as invalid, and still assert that your postition better represents a

majority of acupuncture professionals.I have to call your bluff, Mike.Where is

your evidence? Other than your own strong feelings, what basis do you have for

your claims?David

K.***************************************************************8--- In

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1

wrote:>> David, Are you kidding me? You might want to look at your sample sizes

before you start usingthis as evidence. I noticed that 166 on AT and 36 on CMT

voted for the idea of specialtycertification. First, voting for an idea is not

the same as voting for its execution. Second,I know of many practitioners who do

not vote on these informal polls so this is not a reliablesource. So, I guess

you do not have any then. I would think that this would be the first > to start

by asking all of us to participate. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac> > > To:

Chinese Medicine: acuprof: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:32:53

+0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation> > > > Mike,You ask, " I

would like to hear where your studies show any significant support for any board

specialization in OM. " Here are two sources:Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll

on this subject. So far in that poll: 54% Support Specialty Boards36% Oppose

Them10% Aren't Sure Tools is also running a poll on the subject.

To date, here are the results of that poll:77% Are in favor of specialization23%

Are opposed to specializationWhy are you so convinced that " the profession " is

opposed to specialization or Specialty Boards? I realize that these polls are

not scientific, but they both demonstrate support for the idea of both

specialization and specialty boards.Why do you continue to insist that my views

are in the minority when the data clearly shows that the opposite is true?To

vote in the polls you can go to:Acupuncture Today:

http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/home.phpChinese Medicine Tools:

http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/poll/lets-just-make-this-democratic-are-you-\

for-specialDavid

Karchmer********************************************************--- In

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@>

wrote:>> > David, > > You are right that there is a process but fail to

understand the issue of professional support and its importance to your

organizational success. > > I would like to hear where your studies show any

significant support for any board specialization in OM. The fact that negative

advertising was recently paid for by a group of concerned LAc over this issue, I

would beg to differ with your opinions about acceptability. > > I ask TCM

students, faculty and discuss this issue with other practitioners in the metro

area where I live. They would not be against a future idea related to

specialities but do not see it as a good usage of time or resources now. > >

Other then this, one of my other concerns is what training or seminars is the

exam based upon and why would someone pay to take an exam when they can take

these same open enrollment seminars and advertise they are experts as well. I

appreciate your dialogue but sometimes what we each want is not the best thing

for all of us. > > Mike W. Bowser, LAc>

________> Gear up for Halo? 3

with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It?s our way of saying thanks for

using Windows Live?.> http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2> >

> > > > > > ________> Can you

find the hidden words?? Take a break and play Seekadoo!>

http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink> > [Non-text

portions of this message have been removed]>

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Explore the seven wonders of the world

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world & mkt=en-US & form=QBRE

 

 

[Guest guest]

Maybe you guys should take this conversation offline. Or let it go.

There seems to be a stalemate, so futher discussion will likely be

fruitless and lead to hard feelings.

 

- Bill

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> David,

>

> You mean to say that you have something of proof and my experience

is nothing?

> Right now you and I are on the same level with proof. You have

nothing as well.

> I was interested in something legit not this AT opinion poll

stuff. Got anything else?Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

> : acuprof: Wed, 26 Sep

2007 00:08:30 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

>

>

> Mike,I have stated repeatedly: These polls are not comprehensive,

and they are not scientific. I do not point to them as a definitive

source of public opinion on this matter.Yet, they are something, and

they do provide some data. This stands in sharp contrast to your

claims, which have no data at all, and not one single shred of

evidence behind them other than claims based on personal opinion or

anectdote.You asked me to provide you some evidence, and I did.Then

you dismiss it as invalid, and still assert that your postition

better represents a majority of acupuncture professionals.I have to

call your bluff, Mike.Where is your evidence? Other than your own

strong feelings, what basis do you have for your claims?David

K.***************************************************************8---

In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:>> David, Are you kidding me? You might want to

look at your sample sizes before you start usingthis as evidence. I

noticed that 166 on AT and 36 on CMT voted for the idea of

specialtycertification. First, voting for an idea is not the same as

voting for its execution. Second,I know of many practitioners who do

not vote on these informal polls so this is not a reliablesource.

So, I guess you do not have any then. I would think that this would

be the first > to start by asking all of us to participate. Mike W.

Bowser, L Ac> > > @: acuprof@: Tue,

25 Sep 2007 18:32:53 +0000Re: Specialty Board

Conversation> > > > Mike,You ask, " I would like to hear where your

studies show any significant support for any board specialization in

OM. " Here are two sources:Acupuncture Today is hosting a poll on this

subject. So far in that poll: 54% Support Specialty Boards36% Oppose

Them10% Aren't Sure Tools is also running a poll on

the subject. To date, here are the results of that poll:77% Are in

favor of specialization23% Are opposed to specializationWhy are you

so convinced that " the profession " is opposed to specialization or

Specialty Boards? I realize that these polls are not scientific, but

they both demonstrate support for the idea of both specialization

and specialty boards.Why do you continue to insist that my views are

in the minority when the data clearly shows that the opposite is

true?To vote in the polls you can go to:Acupuncture Today:

http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/home.phpChinese Medicine

Tools: http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/poll/lets-just-make-this-

democratic-are-you-for-specialDavid

Karchmer********************************************************---

In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:>> > David, > > You are right that there is a

process but fail to understand the issue of professional support and

its importance to your organizational success. > > I would like to

hear where your studies show any significant support for any board

specialization in OM. The fact that negative advertising was

recently paid for by a group of concerned LAc over this issue, I

would beg to differ with your opinions about acceptability. > > I

ask TCM students, faculty and discuss this issue with other

practitioners in the metro area where I live. They would not be

against a future idea related to specialities but do not see it as a

good usage of time or resources now. > > Other then this, one of my

other concerns is what training or seminars is the exam based upon

and why would someone pay to take an exam when they can take these

same open enrollment seminars and advertise they are experts as

well. I appreciate your dialogue but sometimes what we each want is

not the best thing for all of us. > > Mike W. Bowser, LAc>

________> Gear up

for Halo? 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It?s our way

of saying thanks for using Windows Live?.> http://gethalo3gear.com?

ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2> > > > > > > >

________> Can you

find the hidden words?? Take a break and play Seekadoo!>

http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink> > [Non-

text portions of this message have been removed]>

_______________

> Explore the seven wonders of the world

> http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world & mkt=en-

US & form=QBRE

>

>

[Guest guest]

Has anyone out there been asked to vote on the Board of directors for

this group or asked to vote for its creation? Just curious.

 

Mike W. Bowser, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine , " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Obsoletely the profession has to be included and that is one of the

problems i have had with all the other so called boards

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

> mike Bowser

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> Friday, September 21, 2007 1:44 PM

> RE: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

> I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession

who are having this debate, also

> be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That

way we might also be involved in

> learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as

well as explain the what and why

> we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then

has its own meeting there is a

> danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all

want to improve our profession,

> let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> : alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep

2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

> This would be the only legitimate process for creating board

specialties510-452-

5034-

marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSpecialty

Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has

participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of

specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to

see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting

the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this

discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the

general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their

role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a

group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different

constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this

group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president

of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of

NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM,

Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has

absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is

just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a

great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have

been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all

able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2.

The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create

a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic.

Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM,

AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members.

Potential topi! cs for c ooperative inquiry might include: Are

specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board

for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions

and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this

is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of

the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I

would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to

ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what

you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's

keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way

rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not

feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group

moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive

so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is

good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will

create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards

can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups

to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of

you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in

Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out.

Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred

too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would

have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to

specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but

not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the

National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT

focuses the discussion around ABORM a! nd ask t hat future discussion

focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any

particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message

have been removed]

>

> ________

> Capture your memories in an online journal!

> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

>

>