CA Tx in Calif

[Guest guest]

By the way, that is not spelled out in the Acupuncture regulations,

but rather is contained in the difficult to read MAZE of regulations

for Physicians and Surgeons. My own understanding is:

 

1) we can Tx a PERSON who has CA Dx, but cannot Tx CA

2) if a person does NOT have a CA DIAGNOSIS by a Licensed Physician,

we can Tx whatever we diagnose, . . . UNLESS we are aware of obvious

red flag signs, in which case we must at least give a recommendation

that they promptly see a Physician , including:

 

- sudden unexplained weightloss > 10 lbs

- irregular border, multicolored, or bigger than pencil diameter mole

- tumour-like swelling, especially if unexplained by recent trauma or

local infection, or increasing in size, and NOT probable ganglion

cyst, dermatofibroma, etc

- unexplained bleeding (anywhere)

- there are probably others, specific to organ dysfunction, or things

like pain that feels like it's in the bone

 

Additionally, if you look at people who have gotten into trouble (MD

or non), you see the standard list of things that are still available

at the Mexican clinics - Essiac, radionics, peach pits, etc., along

with things that DO have promise such as autogenous therapies, and the

old standby of starvation ( ! ) You might work a wonder cure or two

with herbs that are still available, but that is quite a risky

proposition from many perspectives.

 

Joe Reid, zhuan1jia1 hu4dong4 zhen3liao2

jreidomd.blogspot.com

 

 

>Bill Schoenbart " <plantmed wrote:

>

> In California, the primary treatment of cancer is explicitly outside

> our scope of practice. Typically, we are seeing patients who are

> also receiving western treatment. We will sometimes end up being the

> sole treatment modality if a patient is pronounced beyond treatment

> by oncologists.

>

> - Bill

[Guest guest]

Here's a letter from the Acupuncture Board to a state senator:

 

http://www.acupuncture.ca.gov/january2005response.pdf

 

In that letter, the paragraph below spells it out explicitly that we

must refer patients with cancer:

 

" The Board's Legal Counsel, and therefore the Board, relies on

intent language and the interpretation of the intent language, which

require licensees to be subject to regulation and control as a

primary health care professional. However, such a designation is

only within the scope of practice of `acupuncture and Oriental

medicine.' The Board construed this to mean, if an acupuncturist

determines the patients' health problem or symptoms are beyond their

scope and ability to treat (example: cancer, tumors, etc) the

acupuncturist must inform the patient and recommend the patient

schedule an appointment with the appropriate health care provider.

Referral does not mean managing the patients' overall health care. "

 

 

 

 

> By the way, that is not spelled out in the Acupuncture regulations,

> but rather is contained in the difficult to read MAZE of

regulations

> for Physicians and Surgeons. My own understanding is:

>

> 1) we can Tx a PERSON who has CA Dx, but cannot Tx CA

> 2) if a person does NOT have a CA DIAGNOSIS by a Licensed

Physician,

> we can Tx whatever we diagnose, . . . UNLESS we are aware of

obvious

> red flag signs, in which case we must at least give a

recommendation

> that they promptly see a Physician , including:

>

> - sudden unexplained weightloss > 10 lbs

> - irregular border, multicolored, or bigger than pencil diameter

mole

> - tumour-like swelling, especially if unexplained by recent trauma

or

> local infection, or increasing in size, and NOT probable ganglion

> cyst, dermatofibroma, etc

> - unexplained bleeding (anywhere)

> - there are probably others, specific to organ dysfunction, or

things

> like pain that feels like it's in the bone

>

[Guest guest]

In California, restriction of cancer treatment is governed primarily

by statute. Treatment of cancer is not *explicitly* outside of

scope. Our scope of practice is entirely silent regarding the range

of conditions that may be treated. Rather, the restriction on cancer

treatment is inferred from California Health & Safety Code Section

109300 et seq.

 

This section of code does not specify who may or may not treat cancer

but rather restricts treatment to those modalities that have been

approved by FDA or the California Medical Board for cancer treatment.

(None of the modalities allowed in our scope have received the

approval of either.)

 

<snip-->

109300. The sale, offering for sale, holding for sale, delivering,

giving away, prescribing or administering of any drug, medicine,

compound, or device to be used in the diagnosis, treatment,

alleviation, or cure of cancer is unlawful and prohibited unless (1)

an application with respect thereto has been approved under Section

505 of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or (2) there has been

approved an application filed with the [Medical] board...

<--snip>

 

Section 109330 of the code exempts devices used by licensed

physicians and surgeons or by dentists from the above restrictions.

An exemption also exists for those who rely exclusively on prayer for

healing.

 

Based upon inference from the Health & Safety Code, a rather recent

legal opinion from the California Department of Consumer Affairs

argued that acupuncturists are not permitted to diagnose, treat,

alleviate or cure cancer but that the use of acupuncture and Asian

medicine treatments by acupuncturists for patients diagnosed with

cancer is permitted if it is intended to relieve the side effects of

or protect the body from the damaging effect of the therapies used to

treat cancer and if it does not counteract the efficacy of or

otherwise interfere with the treatments prescribed for the patient by

a physician.

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Regards,

Bill

--

Bill Mosca, LAc

Executive Director

California State Oriental Medical Association (CSOMA)

703 Market Street, Suite 250

San Francisco • CA • 94103-2100

[Toll Free Voice]: (800) 477-4564 • [Fax]: (415) 357-1940

: bill • [Website]: csomaonline.org

Bill Schoenbart " <plantmed wrote:

> In California, the primary treatment of cancer is explicitly outside

> our scope of practice. Typically, we are seeing patients who are

> also receiving western treatment. We will sometimes end up being the

> sole treatment modality if a patient is pronounced beyond treatment

> by oncologists.

>

> - Bill