Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Mike -

 

Thanks for clumsily attempting to change the subject, but this thread is

about complaints against the recent ACAOM survey. They state that they

received approximately 3,000 responses. CAN documented and delivered 2,039

signatures opposing the FPD - which the ACAOM is somehow equating as support

for implementing this degree. That's the problem.

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

 

>

> Kim,

>

> Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

> http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is

> your study showing huge opposition?

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> kuangguiyu

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Mike -

>

>

>

> Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support

> for

>

> the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

>

> were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

>

> familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

>

> approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

>

> did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

>

> interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase to

>

> students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

>

> little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to read

>

> it. Thanks.

>

>

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1

> >wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

> > R,

>

> >

>

> > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that

> put

>

> > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

>

> > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no

> response

>

> > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

>

> > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

>

> > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future.

> If

>

> > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine

>

> > acudoc11

>

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > M

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > You know what has been said?

>

> >

>

> > Liars figure and figures lie!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that

> their

>

> >

>

> > voices are worthless.

>

> >

>

> > And let's not monkey with the figures.

>

> >

>

> > 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and

>

> >

>

> > data?

>

> >

>

> > R

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>

> >

>

> > naturaldoc1 writes:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > R,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a

>

> >

>

> > study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on

> making

>

> >

>

> > things better and not complaining so much.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Don,

 

As this issue is about the future and students tend to indicate they want the

FPD as well, I find it odd that any of us would want to deny them the

opportunity to achieve a FPD. Good students will seek education elsewhere from

schools that allow them to achieve a FP doctorate and we will lose in the brain

trust battle. This trend is making the ND and DC programs more interesting to

students that also attend the MSTOM programs. Dual degrees is becoming the

norm.

 

I think there is a lot of fear that others might feel about their own education

lacking info or not getting an actual degree in some cases. We have a mix of

people that include education from: apprenticeships, diplomas and various

degrees. I think that some might be afraid that they will be forced to go back

to school, which is not likely to happen either. This is why getting facts are

important. I share ideas with many aspiring students regularly about things to

look for and possibly things to be cautious of when entering this profession.

 

I miss San Diego's nice weather as well as the students there.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:52:40 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> No, let me thank you Dr. Bowser,

>

>

>

> We need this discussion. But we need to keep it civil and honest. I know

students want the FPD. I taught at PCOM San Diego for some time and I still

keep in contact with friends that are still there. Currently, I am in solitary

confinement in Louisiana and I miss the comarradarie of my peers and friends at

PCOM. However, I do love it here also. I made a trade-off that I don't

regret. Thank you for fighting the fight. You appear to be much better with

words than I am.

>

>

>

> I am sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:15 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Don,

>

> Before you go, let me thank you for sharing your insights into this from

someone who has successfully undertaken a doctorate program. I have graduated

from a doctorate as well and find the added knowledge is a benefit and not a

detriment. There is something special about the hard work it takes to

accomplish, that cannot be conferred simply by legislation, which is misleading

both to the individual and to the public. We do not need to be perceived by

others as playing make-believe, when we really need them to trust us. Showing

added education, both clinically and with deeper understanding, is huge for

moving the profession forward into the future. If you ask, the students will

tell you that is what they want as well.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:47:03 -0500

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> > You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see.

Show us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games.

It appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

> >

> >

> >

> > I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the argument

in moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my practice and how

others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and Chiros treat me

differently.

> >

> >

> >

> > Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a

superficial society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for

one have experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from

those who don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful

practice and would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice.

I believe the FPD is a nice first step.

> >

> >

> >

> > I'm out of here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > acudoc11

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group

> > were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000.

> >

> > So lets stop playing games.

> >

> > You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

> > out of this.

> >

> > And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

> > needed INVESTIGATION.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> > don83407 writes:

> >

> > Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

> > But it appears they were misquoted.

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I disagree

with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from your

opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find.

 

There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate

level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to

Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels.

 

I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all

licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the

patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has

been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in

their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a

move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I

think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what

other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I

would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it.

 

When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone

conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The

reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your

thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate

debate.

 

Valerie Hobbs, L Ac

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> Valerie,

>

> You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our

current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree

and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A

FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD,

that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education

would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation.

That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's

authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help

of our state associations.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> hobbs.valeriehobbs

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

>

> Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let you

know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most

recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to

change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time

the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

>

> You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I just

want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is most

definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original motion,

brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

>

>

>

> The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

>

>

>

> Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

>

> > Kim,

>

> >

>

> > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

>

> > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and

not descriptive of who or what we represent.

>

> > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago. The

master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could not

otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

>

> > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical

internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their

knowledge base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded

clinical and greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own

standards and stop shooting for the lowest bar.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think you've hit the nail right on the proverbial head. Many are insecure

about their own education and perhaps feel threatened when many around them are

getting higher degrees. They then assume those degrees are somehow inferior and

denigrate them.

 

 

 

Too bad.

 

 

 

Don

 

 

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine

naturaldoc1

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:10 +0000

RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don,

 

As this issue is about the future and students tend to indicate they want the

FPD as well, I find it odd that any of us would want to deny them the

opportunity to achieve a FPD. Good students will seek education elsewhere from

schools that allow them to achieve a FP doctorate and we will lose in the brain

trust battle. This trend is making the ND and DC programs more interesting to

students that also attend the MSTOM programs. Dual degrees is becoming the norm.

 

I think there is a lot of fear that others might feel about their own education

lacking info or not getting an actual degree in some cases. We have a mix of

people that include education from: apprenticeships, diplomas and various

degrees. I think that some might be afraid that they will be forced to go back

to school, which is not likely to happen either. This is why getting facts are

important. I share ideas with many aspiring students regularly about things to

look for and possibly things to be cautious of when entering this profession.

 

I miss San Diego's nice weather as well as the students there.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:52:40 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> No, let me thank you Dr. Bowser,

>

>

>

> We need this discussion. But we need to keep it civil and honest. I know

students want the FPD. I taught at PCOM San Diego for some time and I still keep

in contact with friends that are still there. Currently, I am in solitary

confinement in Louisiana and I miss the comarradarie of my peers and friends at

PCOM. However, I do love it here also. I made a trade-off that I don't regret.

Thank you for fighting the fight. You appear to be much better with words than I

am.

>

>

>

> I am sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:15 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Don,

>

> Before you go, let me thank you for sharing your insights into this from

someone who has successfully undertaken a doctorate program. I have graduated

from a doctorate as well and find the added knowledge is a benefit and not a

detriment. There is something special about the hard work it takes to

accomplish, that cannot be conferred simply by legislation, which is misleading

both to the individual and to the public. We do not need to be perceived by

others as playing make-believe, when we really need them to trust us. Showing

added education, both clinically and with deeper understanding, is huge for

moving the profession forward into the future. If you ask, the students will

tell you that is what they want as well.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:47:03 -0500

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> > You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see.

Show us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games.

It appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

> >

> >

> >

> > I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the argument

in moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my practice and how

others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and Chiros treat me

differently.

> >

> >

> >

> > Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a

superficial society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for

one have experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from

those who don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful

practice and would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice.

I believe the FPD is a nice first step.

> >

> >

> >

> > I'm out of here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > acudoc11

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group

> > were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000.

> >

> > So lets stop playing games.

> >

> > You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

> > out of this.

> >

> > And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

> > needed INVESTIGATION.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> > don83407 writes:

> >

> > Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

> > But it appears they were misquoted.

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Kim,

 

I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear to be

claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual to

support your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but where is

your proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many questions I have

over your accusations. Like when were the signatures supplied and was there

confirmation of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for sending these in. Was

there any limitation on organizations sending in collected signature or were

they to be supplied individually? I do not have these answers but would not

mind hearing more about what transpired.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

kuangguiyu

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:13:46 -0700

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike -

 

 

 

Thanks for clumsily attempting to change the subject, but this thread is

 

about complaints against the recent ACAOM survey. They state that they

 

received approximately 3,000 responses. CAN documented and delivered 2,039

 

signatures opposing the FPD - which the ACAOM is somehow equating as support

 

for implementing this degree. That's the problem.

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

 

 

 

>

 

> Kim,

 

>

 

> Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

 

> http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is

 

> your study showing huge opposition?

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine

 

> kuangguiyu

 

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

 

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mike -

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support

 

> for

 

>

 

> the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

 

>

 

> were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

 

>

 

> familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

 

>

 

> approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

 

>

 

> did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

 

>

 

> interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase to

 

>

 

> students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

 

>

 

> little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to read

 

>

 

> it. Thanks.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1

 

> >wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > R,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that

 

> put

 

>

 

> > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

 

>

 

> > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no

 

> response

 

>

 

> > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

 

>

 

> > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

 

>

 

> > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future.

 

> If

 

>

 

> > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Chinese Medicine

 

>

 

> > acudoc11

 

>

 

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

 

>

 

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > M

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > You know what has been said?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Liars figure and figures lie!

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that

 

> their

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > voices are worthless.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > And let's not monkey with the figures.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > data?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > R

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > naturaldoc1 writes:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > R,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on

 

> making

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > things better and not complaining so much.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Don,

 

I get funny responses occasionally from LAc's when they hear that I did both.

They appear confused about the why.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:46:07 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> I think you've hit the nail right on the proverbial head. Many are insecure

about their own education and perhaps feel threatened when many around them are

getting higher degrees. They then assume those degrees are somehow inferior and

denigrate them.

>

>

>

> Too bad.

>

>

>

> Don

>

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:10 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Don,

>

> As this issue is about the future and students tend to indicate they want the

FPD as well, I find it odd that any of us would want to deny them the

opportunity to achieve a FPD. Good students will seek education elsewhere from

schools that allow them to achieve a FP doctorate and we will lose in the brain

trust battle. This trend is making the ND and DC programs more interesting to

students that also attend the MSTOM programs. Dual degrees is becoming the norm.

>

> I think there is a lot of fear that others might feel about their own

education lacking info or not getting an actual degree in some cases. We have a

mix of people that include education from: apprenticeships, diplomas and various

degrees. I think that some might be afraid that they will be forced to go back

to school, which is not likely to happen either. This is why getting facts are

important. I share ideas with many aspiring students regularly about things to

look for and possibly things to be cautious of when entering this profession.

>

> I miss San Diego's nice weather as well as the students there.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:52:40 -0500

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> > No, let me thank you Dr. Bowser,

> >

> >

> >

> > We need this discussion. But we need to keep it civil and honest. I know

students want the FPD. I taught at PCOM San Diego for some time and I still keep

in contact with friends that are still there. Currently, I am in solitary

confinement in Louisiana and I miss the comarradarie of my peers and friends at

PCOM. However, I do love it here also. I made a trade-off that I don't regret.

Thank you for fighting the fight. You appear to be much better with words than I

am.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > naturaldoc1

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:15 +0000

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Don,

> >

> > Before you go, let me thank you for sharing your insights into this from

someone who has successfully undertaken a doctorate program. I have graduated

from a doctorate as well and find the added knowledge is a benefit and not a

detriment. There is something special about the hard work it takes to

accomplish, that cannot be conferred simply by legislation, which is misleading

both to the individual and to the public. We do not need to be perceived by

others as playing make-believe, when we really need them to trust us. Showing

added education, both clinically and with deeper understanding, is huge for

moving the profession forward into the future. If you ask, the students will

tell you that is what they want as well.

> >

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> >

> > > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > > don83407

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:47:03 -0500

> > > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > > You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see.

Show us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games.

It appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the

argument in moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my

practice and how others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and

Chiros treat me differently.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a

superficial society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for

one have experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from

those who don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful

practice and would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice.

I believe the FPD is a nice first step.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I'm out of here.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > acudoc11

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

> > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group

> > > were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000.

> > >

> > > So lets stop playing games.

> > >

> > > You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

> > > out of this.

> > >

> > > And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

> > > needed INVESTIGATION.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> > > don83407 writes:

> > >

> > > Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

> > > But it appears they were misquoted.

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Valerie,

 

Yes you have missed it again. It comes down to simplicity. Matching up of

one's education with licensing designation should be important. You can think

of this as identifying who we are or lessening public confusion. The public is

confused, and many do not know who or what we perform. Nor do they know what a

LAc does and how this is different from anyone else doing acupuncture. We

appear to be the only healthcare profession where this does not occur. I think

this is important.

 

The issue of the FPD, if allowed, would most likely resemble the PT.

Educational change voluntarily preceded legislative change. The FPD would open

us up to this process. I am sorry if you took it as an absolute, it was meant

as allowing this to happen much easier. Many of the professional issues we have

are do to a lack of leadership, communication and courage to act.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

hobbs.valeriehobbs

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:59 +0000

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I

disagree with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from

your opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find.

 

 

 

There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate

level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to

Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels.

 

 

 

I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all

licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the

patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has

been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in

their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a

move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I

think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what

other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I

would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it.

 

 

 

When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone

conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The

reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your

thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate

debate.

 

 

 

Valerie Hobbs, L Ac

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Valerie,

 

>

 

> You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our

current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree

and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A

FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD,

that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education

would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation.

That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's

authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help

of our state associations.

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine

 

> hobbs.valeriehobbs

 

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000

 

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

>

 

>

 

> Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let you

know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most

recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to

change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time

the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

 

>

 

> You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I just

want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is most

definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original motion,

brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

 

>

 

> > Kim,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

 

>

 

> > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and

not descriptive of who or what we represent.

 

>

 

> > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago. The

master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could not

otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

 

>

 

> > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical

internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their

knowledge base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded

clinical and greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own

standards and stop shooting for the lowest bar.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think Chiro and acup make a good team. If I had concentrated better during

our tui-na classes I wouldn't have to refer so many patients to chiro's. AOM is

a predominantly functional medicine (with the exception of tui-na) and chiro

appears to be structural. Good combo I think.

 

 

 

In any event, there probably were not many AOM doctoral programs around when you

went for your doctorate. I say " good for you! " Knowledge is a wonderful thing

and people without it never know that it's missing.

 

 

 

Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine

naturaldoc1

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:17:41 +0000

RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don,

 

I get funny responses occasionally from LAc's when they hear that I did both.

They appear confused about the why.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:46:07 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> I think you've hit the nail right on the proverbial head. Many are insecure

about their own education and perhaps feel threatened when many around them are

getting higher degrees. They then assume those degrees are somehow inferior and

denigrate them.

>

>

>

> Too bad.

>

>

>

> Don

>

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:10 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Don,

>

> As this issue is about the future and students tend to indicate they want the

FPD as well, I find it odd that any of us would want to deny them the

opportunity to achieve a FPD. Good students will seek education elsewhere from

schools that allow them to achieve a FP doctorate and we will lose in the brain

trust battle. This trend is making the ND and DC programs more interesting to

students that also attend the MSTOM programs. Dual degrees is becoming the norm.

>

> I think there is a lot of fear that others might feel about their own

education lacking info or not getting an actual degree in some cases. We have a

mix of people that include education from: apprenticeships, diplomas and various

degrees. I think that some might be afraid that they will be forced to go back

to school, which is not likely to happen either. This is why getting facts are

important. I share ideas with many aspiring students regularly about things to

look for and possibly things to be cautious of when entering this profession.

>

> I miss San Diego's nice weather as well as the students there.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:52:40 -0500

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> > No, let me thank you Dr. Bowser,

> >

> >

> >

> > We need this discussion. But we need to keep it civil and honest. I know

students want the FPD. I taught at PCOM San Diego for some time and I still keep

in contact with friends that are still there. Currently, I am in solitary

confinement in Louisiana and I miss the comarradarie of my peers and friends at

PCOM. However, I do love it here also. I made a trade-off that I don't regret.

Thank you for fighting the fight. You appear to be much better with words than I

am.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > naturaldoc1

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:15 +0000

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Don,

> >

> > Before you go, let me thank you for sharing your insights into this from

someone who has successfully undertaken a doctorate program. I have graduated

from a doctorate as well and find the added knowledge is a benefit and not a

detriment. There is something special about the hard work it takes to

accomplish, that cannot be conferred simply by legislation, which is misleading

both to the individual and to the public. We do not need to be perceived by

others as playing make-believe, when we really need them to trust us. Showing

added education, both clinically and with deeper understanding, is huge for

moving the profession forward into the future. If you ask, the students will

tell you that is what they want as well.

> >

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> >

> > > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > > don83407

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:47:03 -0500

> > > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > > You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see.

Show us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games.

It appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the

argument in moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my

practice and how others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and

Chiros treat me differently.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a

superficial society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for

one have experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from

those who don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful

practice and would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice.

I believe the FPD is a nice first step.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I'm out of here.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > acudoc11

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

> > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group

> > > were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000.

> > >

> > > So lets stop playing games.

> > >

> > > You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

> > > out of this.

> > >

> > > And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

> > > needed INVESTIGATION.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> > > don83407 writes:

> > >

> > > Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

> > > But it appears they were misquoted.

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

David

 

Nope....those specific events occurred 1998 time frame with the DOM title

deal.

The AOMNCC has done the same circa 2003.....any of its members receive the

moniker of DISTINGUISHED ACUPUNCTURE PHYSICIAN. A collegial

title......similar to what AAOM was thinking back in 1998.

 

The FSOMA fiasco happened 2002 and guess what was on the table? I and a few

key others such as Harvey Kaltsas had a Florida Bill amendment in the

House & Senate to upgrade Florida LAcs to the Doctor title IN statute along

with raising the education from 2715 hrs to 3200 hours. We were WAY AHEAD of

the curve on a state basis. That's when all the LEGAL RAPING occurred.

Obviously I was a serious threat to the night-trade-schools grubbing big money.

The trouble is that they had NO vision and still don't. A bunch of

chickens.

 

Now you see the recent article in Acupuncture Today by Richard Browne -

owner of one of the Florida schools. We discussed this just several weeks ago

and he would STRONGLY support such another move.

 

Keep your eyes on Florida.....we might just pull it off. And with exception

of one of the six Florida schools I believe the other five SEE the benefit

regardless what ACAOM thinks. The majority of these schools are already at

3,000 hours. No difficulty adding 200 more and then the Triple PhD NOW

called a Masters automatically turns into an entry level doctor degree.

 

Now is the time to strike while the window of opportunity is open and the

iron appears to be heating up. Other states might try to emulate these

moves. At least for here...it appears to be in the best interests for the

schools, the students, the already licensed practitioners and the patients. No

need to turn it into $100,000 degree. We have more than the needed education.

 

Richard Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/19/2010 6:17:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

 

 

 

 

Do you mean moi? AAOM was told by CCAOM they were going to develop a

doctoral program in exchange for us not giving one as a membership perk (which

we found was legal after a few proceedures)Do you mean moi? AAOM was told by

CCAOM they were going to develop a doctoral

I think this was at the same time there was problems with FSOMA and

yourself, and folks on the board did not want to get involved in the turmoil.

In

many ways, one could understand, but I wouldn't have minded as I enjoy

excitement. At the time, my personal choices were subverted by the hive.

DAve

--

 

On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:52:45 AM, _acudoc11_ (m

ailto:acudoc11) wrote:

 

I am sure you remember that in 1998 I volunteered my time and actually

worked on the AAOM-AAAOM's " Doctor of Oriental Medicine " program.

 

After AAOM-AAAOM scrapped it, sold it off or succumbed to the powers that

be..........be..........<WBR>you should remember telling me to MIND M

FLORIDA and to stay out of national affairs. Which strangely enough I

thought

GOOD advice.

 

So please don't give the impression that I did not want to be involved or

never was just because I didn't care to be on ANY Board of Directors.

It was obvious that my involvement was not wanted.

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I HAVEN'T MADE ANY CLAIMS OR ACCUSATIONS OF WRONG-DOING - those are your

words, not mine. It is my understanding that the ACAOM wanted a consensus,

received a negative response, and then announced that there was support for

the FPD. All I've said is that this appears to me to be very odd. I also

understand that complaints have been made and that there has so far been no

response. Questioning the interpretation of study data is a far cry from

accusations of wrong-doing; to the best of my knowledge no one is claiming

any wrong-doing.

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

 

>

>

>

> Kim,

>

> I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear

> to be claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual

> to support your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but

> where is your proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many

> questions I have over your accusations. Like when were the signatures

> supplied and was there confirmation of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for

> sending these in. Was there any limitation on organizations sending in

> collected signature or were they to be supplied individually? I do not have

> these answers but would not mind hearing more about what transpired.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

> kuangguiyu <kuangguiyu%40gmail.com>

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:13:46 -0700

>

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> Mike -

>

> Thanks for clumsily attempting to change the subject, but this thread is

>

> about complaints against the recent ACAOM survey. They state that they

>

> received approximately 3,000 responses. CAN documented and delivered 2,039

>

> signatures opposing the FPD - which the ACAOM is somehow equating as

> support

>

> for implementing this degree. That's the problem.

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>

> >wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Kim,

>

> >

>

> > Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

>

> > http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is

>

> > your study showing huge opposition?

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

>

> > kuangguiyu <kuangguiyu%40gmail.com>

>

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Mike -

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support

>

> > for

>

> >

>

> > the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

>

> >

>

> > were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

>

> >

>

> > familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

>

> >

>

> > approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

>

> >

>

> > did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

>

> >

>

> > interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase

> to

>

> >

>

> > students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

>

> >

>

> > little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to

> read

>

> >

>

> > it. Thanks.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>

>

> > >wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > R,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that

>

> > put

>

> >

>

> > > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

>

> >

>

> > > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no

>

> > response

>

> >

>

> > > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

>

> >

>

> > > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

>

> >

>

> > > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future.

>

> > If

>

> >

>

> > > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

>

> >

>

> > > acudoc11 <acudoc11%40aol.com>

>

> >

>

> > > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

>

> >

>

> > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > M

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > You know what has been said?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Liars figure and figures lie!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that

>

> > their

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > voices are worthless.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > And let's not monkey with the figures.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports

> and

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > data?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > R

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> writes:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > R,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on

>

> > making

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > things better and not complaining so much.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Primarily why I don't work in the Hive.

Yes....they shystered you/AAOM and the rest of the profession.

I smelled a rat back then and there still a few rats running around......

hopefully running for the hills.

 

Richard

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/19/2010 6:17:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

 

Do you mean moi? AAOM was told by CCAOM they were going to develop a

doctoral program in exchange for us not giving one as a membership perk (which

we found was legal after a few proceedures)Do you mean moi? AAOM was told

by CCAOM they were going to develop a doctoral

I think this was at the same time there was problems with FSOMA and

yourself, and folks on the board did not want to get involved in the turmoil.

In

many ways, one could understand, but I wouldn't have minded as I enjoy

excitement. At the time, my personal choices were subverted by the hive.

DAve

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Mike, you raised questions about " proof, " confirmation of receipt, and date of

delivery.

 

 

 

I personally delivered the signatures to ACAOM on Wednesday, January 13th. Here

are pictures of me standing outside the ACAOM offices with the paperwork:

http://www.facebook.com/jessica.feltz?v=photos & ref=profile#!/album.php?aid=13850\

4 & id=541609631

 

 

 

I have the signature of Lillie Williams confirming her receipt of our records.

 

 

 

John Weeks even covered the story in the Integrator Blog:

http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=624 & \

Itemid=189

 

 

 

According to ACAOM

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/ACAOM%20First%20Professional%20Doctoral%20Stand\

ards%2010.pdf), " The Commission received approximately 3000 letters and petition

signatures on the subject. "

 

 

 

Over 2,000 of those signatures were in opposition to the FPD. I know, because I

counted them. Several times. I still have copies of everything in a box in my

living room, if you'd like to count also...

 

 

 

We have some more questions, too. You can find them detailed here:

http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/cans-official-letter-complaint-a\

caom-re-decision-fpd-standards

 

 

 

Our complaint was made public on April 2, 2010.

 

 

 

Per ACAOM's policy 3.12, " Complaints Initiated Against ACAOM, " the Commission is

expected to respond to all complaints within 30 days.

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/Policies%20and%20Procedures%20Handbook%2007-08-\

08.pdf)

 

 

 

It is my understanding that Dort Bigg resigned from his position as Executive of ACAOM on March 16, 2010, and that there is no replacement.

(http://www.acaom.org/comm_staff.htm)

 

 

 

I hope this helps to answer some of your questions, and provides sufficient

hyperlinking, as previously requested...

 

 

~ Jessica Feltz Wolfson

 

CAN Board of Directors

 

 

 

 

 

 

naturaldoc1

 

 

 

 

 

Kim,

 

I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear to be

claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual to support

your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but where is your

proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many questions I have over your

accusations. Like when were the signatures supplied and was there confirmation

of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for sending these in. Was there any

limitation on organizations sending in collected signature or were they to be

supplied individually? I do not have these answers but would not mind hearing

more about what transpired.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\

:T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Kim,

 

Alright then maybe I added this to Richard's comments. It does seem odd I will

give you that but I do not expect a rapid response from them as they are

underfunded.

 

I am unsure where you get the negative response from as the data do not support

that conclusion. Until we have more facts, it is not prudent to go there. I

think that the 600 Asian practitioners in CA (per Will Morris) would push the

numbers toward supportive. Until we see something more definitive, it is only

speculation. We can do better then speculate.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

kuangguiyu

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:31:31 -0700

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I HAVEN'T MADE ANY CLAIMS OR ACCUSATIONS OF WRONG-DOING - those are your

 

words, not mine. It is my understanding that the ACAOM wanted a consensus,

 

received a negative response, and then announced that there was support for

 

the FPD. All I've said is that this appears to me to be very odd. I also

 

understand that complaints have been made and that there has so far been no

 

response. Questioning the interpretation of study data is a far cry from

 

accusations of wrong-doing; to the best of my knowledge no one is claiming

 

any wrong-doing.

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

 

 

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Kim,

 

>

 

> I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear

 

> to be claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual

 

> to support your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but

 

> where is your proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many

 

> questions I have over your accusations. Like when were the signatures

 

> supplied and was there confirmation of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for

 

> sending these in. Was there any limitation on organizations sending in

 

> collected signature or were they to be supplied individually? I do not have

 

> these answers but would not mind hearing more about what transpired.

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

 

> kuangguiyu <kuangguiyu%40gmail.com>

 

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:13:46 -0700

 

>

 

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

> Mike -

 

>

 

> Thanks for clumsily attempting to change the subject, but this thread is

 

>

 

> about complaints against the recent ACAOM survey. They state that they

 

>

 

> received approximately 3,000 responses. CAN documented and delivered 2,039

 

>

 

> signatures opposing the FPD - which the ACAOM is somehow equating as

 

> support

 

>

 

> for implementing this degree. That's the problem.

 

>

 

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

>

 

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM, mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>

 

> >wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Kim,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

 

>

 

> > http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is

 

>

 

> > your study showing huge opposition?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

 

>

 

> > kuangguiyu <kuangguiyu%40gmail.com>

 

>

 

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

 

>

 

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Mike -

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support

 

>

 

> > for

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase

 

> to

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to

 

> read

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > it. Thanks.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>

 

>

 

> > >wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > R,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that

 

>

 

> > put

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no

 

>

 

> > response

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future.

 

>

 

> > If

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > acudoc11 <acudoc11%40aol.com>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > M

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > You know what has been said?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Liars figure and figures lie!

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that

 

>

 

> > their

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > voices are worthless.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > And let's not monkey with the figures.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports

 

> and

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > data?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > R

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> writes:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > R,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on

 

>

 

> > making

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > things better and not complaining so much.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Don,

 

Schools were just starting with the DAOM's when I started my chiro program. I

have heard a lot of good experiences so far from DAOM students. Learning both

has opened my mind up to a lot of new ideas on how to approach patient care.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:40:57 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> I think Chiro and acup make a good team. If I had concentrated better during

our tui-na classes I wouldn't have to refer so many patients to chiro's. AOM is

a predominantly functional medicine (with the exception of tui-na) and chiro

appears to be structural. Good combo I think.

>

>

>

> In any event, there probably were not many AOM doctoral programs around when

you went for your doctorate. I say " good for you! " Knowledge is a wonderful

thing and people without it never know that it's missing.

>

>

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:17:41 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Don,

>

> I get funny responses occasionally from LAc's when they hear that I did both.

They appear confused about the why.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:46:07 -0500

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> > I think you've hit the nail right on the proverbial head. Many are insecure

about their own education and perhaps feel threatened when many around them are

getting higher degrees. They then assume those degrees are somehow inferior and

denigrate them.

> >

> >

> >

> > Too bad.

> >

> >

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > naturaldoc1

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:10 +0000

> > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Don,

> >

> > As this issue is about the future and students tend to indicate they want

the FPD as well, I find it odd that any of us would want to deny them the

opportunity to achieve a FPD. Good students will seek education elsewhere from

schools that allow them to achieve a FP doctorate and we will lose in the brain

trust battle. This trend is making the ND and DC programs more interesting to

students that also attend the MSTOM programs. Dual degrees is becoming the norm.

> >

> > I think there is a lot of fear that others might feel about their own

education lacking info or not getting an actual degree in some cases. We have a

mix of people that include education from: apprenticeships, diplomas and various

degrees. I think that some might be afraid that they will be forced to go back

to school, which is not likely to happen either. This is why getting facts are

important. I share ideas with many aspiring students regularly about things to

look for and possibly things to be cautious of when entering this profession.

> >

> > I miss San Diego's nice weather as well as the students there.

> >

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> >

> > > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > > don83407

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:52:40 -0500

> > > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > > No, let me thank you Dr. Bowser,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > We need this discussion. But we need to keep it civil and honest. I know

students want the FPD. I taught at PCOM San Diego for some time and I still keep

in contact with friends that are still there. Currently, I am in solitary

confinement in Louisiana and I miss the comarradarie of my peers and friends at

PCOM. However, I do love it here also. I made a trade-off that I don't regret.

Thank you for fighting the fight. You appear to be much better with words than I

am.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am sincerely,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > > naturaldoc1

> > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:31:15 +0000

> > > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don,

> > >

> > > Before you go, let me thank you for sharing your insights into this from

someone who has successfully undertaken a doctorate program. I have graduated

from a doctorate as well and find the added knowledge is a benefit and not a

detriment. There is something special about the hard work it takes to

accomplish, that cannot be conferred simply by legislation, which is misleading

both to the individual and to the public. We do not need to be perceived by

others as playing make-believe, when we really need them to trust us. Showing

added education, both clinically and with deeper understanding, is huge for

moving the profession forward into the future. If you ask, the students will

tell you that is what they want as well.

> > >

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> > >

> > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > > > don83407

> > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:47:03 -0500

> > > > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see.

Show us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games.

It appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the

argument in moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my

practice and how others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and

Chiros treat me differently.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a

superficial society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for

one have experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from

those who don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful

practice and would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice.

I believe the FPD is a nice first step.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm out of here.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine

> > > > acudoc11

> > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

> > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this

group

> > > > were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of

3,000.

> > > >

> > > > So lets stop playing games.

> > > >

> > > > You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

> > > > out of this.

> > > >

> > > > And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

> > > > needed INVESTIGATION.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> > > > don83407 writes:

> > > >

> > > > Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

> > > > But it appears they were misquoted.

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

MIke, I'm really sorry, I haven't missed a thing. You are stating something that

is your opinion that is not fact. You aren't correct it: the entry level for

education in state PT laws did not change when the DPT was introduced. This

isn't my opinion or yours, this is fact.

 

I just don't agree with you that the picture you paint of one eventual degree

makes everything simple. Simplicity has many meanings, and I do not think that

there is a compelling reason to make all acupuncturists fit into one mold --

whose mold should that be? Should they just do herbs, should they do 5E? should

they spend 3 years in training? 4? 5? Moving forward does not have to mean that

everyone has to be lock step in an upgraded degree. The insistence that this be

so split this profession once. There is no need (my opinion for sure) for that

to happen again.

 

We are not the only profession that has multiple educational entries into

licensure. Please at least, say it's your opinion that we are when you make that

statement as fact, because there are a lot of nurses out there that have

different levels of education, PTs, OTs, etc. I think it's important that you

state this as your vision for the profession, it is not an eventual conclusion.

 

Look, I'm in favor of producing a FPD degree. I have been at the table for 11

years on this issue. I've read the state laws and talked to the state

departments of education. I think the FPD answers many of the demands of the

profession.

 

However, it is not fact, and it isn't my opinion at this time that the Master's

level should be retired any time after a FPD becomes a solid standard. FPD

trained acupuncturists cannot meet all the public health needs in this country

for acupuncture, because patients can't pay for it. We have a compelling active

force in our profession with Community Acupuncture and they are showing us daily

that we need excellence, rigor and sustainability. I would never suggest that

the acupuncture doc working in a cancer ward cannot have a route to appropriate

doctoral level education. In attaining that, please don't make the public health

acupuncturist fit an educational degree that won't work for them or their

patients.

 

Now, more than any other time in our professional development, has come the time

to embrace more than a one-size fits all model.

 

Valerie Hobbs LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> Valerie,

>

> Yes you have missed it again. It comes down to simplicity. Matching up of

one's education with licensing designation should be important. You can think

of this as identifying who we are or lessening public confusion. The public is

confused, and many do not know who or what we perform. Nor do they know what a

LAc does and how this is different from anyone else doing acupuncture. We

appear to be the only healthcare profession where this does not occur. I think

this is important.

>

> The issue of the FPD, if allowed, would most likely resemble the PT.

Educational change voluntarily preceded legislative change. The FPD would open

us up to this process. I am sorry if you took it as an absolute, it was meant

as allowing this to happen much easier. Many of the professional issues we have

are do to a lack of leadership, communication and courage to act.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> hobbs.valeriehobbs

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:59 +0000

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I

disagree with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from

your opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find.

>

>

>

> There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate

level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to

Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels.

>

>

>

> I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all

licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the

patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has

been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in

their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a

move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I

think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what

other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I

would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it.

>

>

>

> When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone

conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The

reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your

thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate

debate.

>

>

>

> Valerie Hobbs, L Ac

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valerie,

>

> >

>

> > You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our

current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree

and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A

FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD,

that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education

would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation.

That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's

authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help

of our state associations.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine

>

> > hobbs.valeriehobbs@

>

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let

you know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most

recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to

change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time

the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

>

> >

>

> > You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I

just want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is

most definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original

motion, brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > Kim,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

>

> >

>

> > > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and

not descriptive of who or what we represent.

>

> >

>

> > > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago.

The master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could

not otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

>

> >

>

> > > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical

internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their

knowledge base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded

clinical and greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own

standards and stop shooting for the lowest bar.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

_______________

> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

Hotmail.

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jessica,

 

Good to note but your photos only show you standing in front of a door next to

an ACAOM sign. Not really proof of signatures.

 

I mean you no disrespect but much of your response appears to be hearsay.

Hyperlinks were not requested but would be informative if they showed visual

evidence. I find this interesting but not conclusive of the anti-position.

Hopefully when ACAOM is more fully staffed, we will get a response.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine

shantileigh

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:28:07 -0400

RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike, you raised questions about " proof, " confirmation of receipt, and date of

delivery.

 

 

 

I personally delivered the signatures to ACAOM on Wednesday, January 13th. Here

are pictures of me standing outside the ACAOM offices with the paperwork:

http://www.facebook.com/jessica.feltz?v=photos & ref=profile#!/album.php?aid=13850\

4 & id=541609631

 

 

 

I have the signature of Lillie Williams confirming her receipt of our records.

 

 

 

John Weeks even covered the story in the Integrator Blog:

http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=624 & \

Itemid=189

 

 

 

According to ACAOM

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/ACAOM%20First%20Professional%20Doctoral%20Stand\

ards%2010.pdf), " The Commission received approximately 3000 letters and petition

signatures on the subject. "

 

 

 

Over 2,000 of those signatures were in opposition to the FPD. I know, because I

counted them. Several times. I still have copies of everything in a box in my

living room, if you'd like to count also...

 

 

 

We have some more questions, too. You can find them detailed here:

http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/cans-official-letter-complaint-a\

caom-re-decision-fpd-standards

 

 

 

Our complaint was made public on April 2, 2010.

 

 

 

Per ACAOM's policy 3.12, " Complaints Initiated Against ACAOM, " the Commission is

expected to respond to all complaints within 30 days.

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/Policies%20and%20Procedures%20Handbook%2007-08-\

08.pdf)

 

 

 

It is my understanding that Dort Bigg resigned from his position as Executive of ACAOM on March 16, 2010, and that there is no replacement.

(http://www.acaom.org/comm_staff.htm)

 

 

 

I hope this helps to answer some of your questions, and provides sufficient

hyperlinking, as previously requested...

 

 

 

~ Jessica Feltz Wolfson

 

 

 

CAN Board of Directors

 

 

 

 

 

naturaldoc1

 

 

 

 

 

Kim,

 

 

 

I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear to be

claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual to support

your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but where is your

proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many questions I have over your

accusations. Like when were the signatures supplied and was there confirmation

of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for sending these in. Was there any

limitation on organizations sending in collected signature or were they to be

supplied individually? I do not have these answers but would not mind hearing

more about what transpired.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

________

 

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

 

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\

:T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Mike,

 

 

 

I am not scanning each of the 2,000+ signatures for your review, but you are

welcome to come and look at them in person anytime. Just let me know when

you'll be in Maryland...

 

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:50:03 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> Jessica,

>

> Good to note but your photos only show you standing in front of a door next to

an ACAOM sign. Not really proof of signatures.

>

> I mean you no disrespect but much of your response appears to be hearsay.

Hyperlinks were not requested but would be informative if they showed visual

evidence. I find this interesting but not conclusive of the anti-position.

Hopefully when ACAOM is more fully staffed, we will get a response.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> shantileigh

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:28:07 -0400

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Mike, you raised questions about " proof, " confirmation of receipt, and date of

delivery.

>

>

>

> I personally delivered the signatures to ACAOM on Wednesday, January 13th.

Here are pictures of me standing outside the ACAOM offices with the paperwork:

http://www.facebook.com/jessica.feltz?v=photos & ref=profile#!/album.php?aid=13850\

4 & id=541609631

>

>

>

> I have the signature of Lillie Williams confirming her receipt of our records.

>

>

>

> John Weeks even covered the story in the Integrator Blog:

http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=624 & \

Itemid=189

>

>

>

> According to ACAOM

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/ACAOM%20First%20Professional%20Doctoral%20Stand\

ards%2010.pdf), " The Commission received approximately 3000 letters and petition

signatures on the subject. "

>

>

>

> Over 2,000 of those signatures were in opposition to the FPD. I know, because

I counted them. Several times. I still have copies of everything in a box in my

living room, if you'd like to count also...

>

>

>

> We have some more questions, too. You can find them detailed here:

http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/cans-official-letter-complaint-a\

caom-re-decision-fpd-standards

>

>

>

> Our complaint was made public on April 2, 2010.

>

>

>

> Per ACAOM's policy 3.12, " Complaints Initiated Against ACAOM, " the Commission

is expected to respond to all complaints within 30 days.

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/Policies%20and%20Procedures%20Handbook%2007-08-\

08.pdf)

>

>

>

> It is my understanding that Dort Bigg resigned from his position as Executive of ACAOM on March 16, 2010, and that there is no replacement.

(http://www.acaom.org/comm_staff.htm)

>

>

>

> I hope this helps to answer some of your questions, and provides sufficient

hyperlinking, as previously requested...

>

>

>

> ~ Jessica Feltz Wolfson

>

>

>

> CAN Board of Directors

>

>

>

>

>

> naturaldoc1

>

>

>

>

>

> Kim,

>

>

>

> I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear to

be claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual to

support your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but where is

your proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many questions I have over

your accusations. Like when were the signatures supplied and was there

confirmation of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for sending these in. Was there

any limitation on organizations sending in collected signature or were they to

be supplied individually? I do not have these answers but would not mind hearing

more about what transpired.

>

>

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

>

> .

>

>

>

>

>

> ________

>

> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

>

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\

:T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not

match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level

as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC

license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is

still PT.

 

 

 

I hope I got it.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

hobbs.valeriehobbs

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:48:29 +0000

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

MIke, I'm really sorry, I haven't missed a thing. You are stating something that

is your opinion that is not fact. You aren't correct it: the entry level for

education in state PT laws did not change when the DPT was introduced. This

isn't my opinion or yours, this is fact.

 

I just don't agree with you that the picture you paint of one eventual degree

makes everything simple. Simplicity has many meanings, and I do not think that

there is a compelling reason to make all acupuncturists fit into one mold --

whose mold should that be? Should they just do herbs, should they do 5E? should

they spend 3 years in training? 4? 5? Moving forward does not have to mean that

everyone has to be lock step in an upgraded degree. The insistence that this be

so split this profession once. There is no need (my opinion for sure) for that

to happen again.

 

We are not the only profession that has multiple educational entries into

licensure. Please at least, say it's your opinion that we are when you make that

statement as fact, because there are a lot of nurses out there that have

different levels of education, PTs, OTs, etc. I think it's important that you

state this as your vision for the profession, it is not an eventual conclusion.

 

Look, I'm in favor of producing a FPD degree. I have been at the table for 11

years on this issue. I've read the state laws and talked to the state

departments of education. I think the FPD answers many of the demands of the

profession.

 

However, it is not fact, and it isn't my opinion at this time that the Master's

level should be retired any time after a FPD becomes a solid standard. FPD

trained acupuncturists cannot meet all the public health needs in this country

for acupuncture, because patients can't pay for it. We have a compelling active

force in our profession with Community Acupuncture and they are showing us daily

that we need excellence, rigor and sustainability. I would never suggest that

the acupuncture doc working in a cancer ward cannot have a route to appropriate

doctoral level education. In attaining that, please don't make the public health

acupuncturist fit an educational degree that won't work for them or their

patients.

 

Now, more than any other time in our professional development, has come the time

to embrace more than a one-size fits all model.

 

Valerie Hobbs LAc

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> Valerie,

>

> Yes you have missed it again. It comes down to simplicity. Matching up of

one's education with licensing designation should be important. You can think of

this as identifying who we are or lessening public confusion. The public is

confused, and many do not know who or what we perform. Nor do they know what a

LAc does and how this is different from anyone else doing acupuncture. We appear

to be the only healthcare profession where this does not occur. I think this is

important.

>

> The issue of the FPD, if allowed, would most likely resemble the PT.

Educational change voluntarily preceded legislative change. The FPD would open

us up to this process. I am sorry if you took it as an absolute, it was meant as

allowing this to happen much easier. Many of the professional issues we have are

do to a lack of leadership, communication and courage to act.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> hobbs.valeriehobbs

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:59 +0000

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I

disagree with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from

your opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find.

>

>

>

> There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate

level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to

Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels.

>

>

>

> I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all

licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the

patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has

been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in

their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a

move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I

think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what

other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I

would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it.

>

>

>

> When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone

conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The

reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your

thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate

debate.

>

>

>

> Valerie Hobbs, L Ac

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valerie,

>

> >

>

> > You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our

current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree

and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A

FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD,

that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education

would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation.

That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's

authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help

of our state associations.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine

>

> > hobbs.valeriehobbs@

>

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let you

know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most

recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to

change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time

the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

>

> >

>

> > You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I

just want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is

most definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original

motion, brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > Kim,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

>

> >

>

> > > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and not

descriptive of who or what we represent.

>

> >

>

> > > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago.

The master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could

not otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

>

> >

>

> > > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical

internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their knowledge

base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded clinical and

greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own standards and

stop shooting for the lowest bar.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

________

> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

Hotmail.

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Do you mean moi? AAOM was told by CCAOM they were going to develop a doctoral

program in exchange for us not giving one as a membership perk (which we found

was legal after a few proceedures), and then shystered us with the DAOM. Too

soon old, too late smart, I guess.

I think this was at the same time there was problems with FSOMA and yourself,

and folks on the board did not want to get involved in the turmoil. In many

ways, one could understand, but I wouldn't have minded as I enjoy excitement. At

the time, my personal choices were subverted by the hive.

DAve

--

 

On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:52:45 AM, acudoc11 wrote:

 

 

I am sure you remember that in 1998 I volunteered my time and actually 

worked on the AAOM-AAAOM's " Doctor of Oriental Medicine " program.

 

After AAOM-AAAOM scrapped it, sold it off or succumbed to the powers that 

be..........you should remember telling me to MIND MY OWN BUSINESS IN 

FLORIDA and to stay out of national affairs. Which strangely enough I thought 

GOOD advice. 

 

So please don't give the impression that I did not want to be involved or 

never was just because I didn't care to be on ANY Board of Directors.

It was obvious that my involvement was not wanted.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest

level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a

PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac.

We coexist.

 

As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and

the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA

nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public

need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing.

 

All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to

investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable.

 

Valerie

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do

not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational

level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the

DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title

is still PT.

>

>

>

> I hope I got it.

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Because MD and DC happen to be the highest and only educational titles. If and

when the FPD becomes the only title. All state licensure boards should title us

the same as everyone else.

 

 

 

Don Snow

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

hobbs.valeriehobbs

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level

of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT.

In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We

coexist.

 

As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and

the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA

nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public

need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing.

 

All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to

investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable.

 

Valerie

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do

not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational

level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the

DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title

is still PT.

>

>

>

> I hope I got it.

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I made my point, you made yours. I'm done with it.

Dave

 

David

 

Windmill to you not to me especially with all the advances we have made 

since 1998 in Florida. I owe you a debt of gratitude of turning me away from 

the national issues to focus on Florida. Thanks so very much.

 

By the way...if you and AAOM-AAAOM had cared to even ASK, the Class Action 

RICO lawsuit cost absolutely NOTHING. 

 

As to NOT knowing about it......please. Tell that story to someone else. 

Everyone reads Acupuncture Today.

It was clearly published in 2004: 

_http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468_ 

(http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468) 

 

Florida even at the start (1980) with the two year program was ALWAYS 

Oriental Medicine. Funny that you mention this because when we saw the move in 

the late 1990's to totally restrict the profession to 

needles-only............ by STATUTUTORY changes we MADE Oriental Medicine a

subset of 

Acupuncture. Kind of ass backwards but it got the job done of protecting the 

profession here in Florida. 

 

It appears that other state oprganizations were not watching the ball in 

their respective states and neither were the national organizations. And 

those national orgs interested in the school cottage industry of making big 

bucks were watching their own pockets and not the professions best interests.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Valerie,

 

That is your opinion.

 

I never stated that the PT laws simply changed due to a change in education.

Please go back and reread my response. You are incorrect on my position on this

as well. The issue is that the educational changes, such as moving from a

master's to a doctorate, over time allowed for a simple change to the laws on

licensing designation. It is no big deal to change the law, after all the PT's

are doctors. This would be a good way for us to deal with this issue as well.

Will Morris has spoken publicly on this process as well. So is Mr. Morris wrong

to suggest this process?

 

You have missed a simple point that our profession has been plagued with for

many years, a lack of a single standard. This simple concept has created much

confusion and issues related to relocation for many senior practitioners and

graduates from lesser programs. I was simply pointing out that the FPD would

allow us to simplify both our educational and licensing designation so that they

match. This would allow us more easily to get the doctorate designation and the

educational level would support choice of designation. If you want to legislate

doctor in an state when you only have a master's degree, then it becomes an

issue with others. You might want to read the recent editorial in Acupuncture

Today that deals with a need to establish a central focus, yes we need one if we

are to remain viable. That is not simply my opinion.

 

PT's, OT's and nurses lack the authority to diagnose and practice w/o medical

oversight. Even these other groups have some level of reciprocity while we are

all over the board.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

hobbs.valeriehobbs

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:48:29 +0000

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIke, I'm really sorry, I haven't missed a thing. You are stating

something that is your opinion that is not fact. You aren't correct it: the

entry level for education in state PT laws did not change when the DPT was

introduced. This isn't my opinion or yours, this is fact.

 

 

 

I just don't agree with you that the picture you paint of one eventual degree

makes everything simple. Simplicity has many meanings, and I do not think that

there is a compelling reason to make all acupuncturists fit into one mold --

whose mold should that be? Should they just do herbs, should they do 5E? should

they spend 3 years in training? 4? 5? Moving forward does not have to mean that

everyone has to be lock step in an upgraded degree. The insistence that this be

so split this profession once. There is no need (my opinion for sure) for that

to happen again.

 

 

 

We are not the only profession that has multiple educational entries into

licensure. Please at least, say it's your opinion that we are when you make that

statement as fact, because there are a lot of nurses out there that have

different levels of education, PTs, OTs, etc. I think it's important that you

state this as your vision for the profession, it is not an eventual conclusion.

 

 

 

Look, I'm in favor of producing a FPD degree. I have been at the table for 11

years on this issue. I've read the state laws and talked to the state

departments of education. I think the FPD answers many of the demands of the

profession.

 

 

 

However, it is not fact, and it isn't my opinion at this time that the Master's

level should be retired any time after a FPD becomes a solid standard. FPD

trained acupuncturists cannot meet all the public health needs in this country

for acupuncture, because patients can't pay for it. We have a compelling active

force in our profession with Community Acupuncture and they are showing us daily

that we need excellence, rigor and sustainability. I would never suggest that

the acupuncture doc working in a cancer ward cannot have a route to appropriate

doctoral level education. In attaining that, please don't make the public health

acupuncturist fit an educational degree that won't work for them or their

patients.

 

 

 

Now, more than any other time in our professional development, has come the time

to embrace more than a one-size fits all model.

 

 

 

Valerie Hobbs LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Valerie,

 

>

 

> Yes you have missed it again. It comes down to simplicity. Matching up of

one's education with licensing designation should be important. You can think

of this as identifying who we are or lessening public confusion. The public is

confused, and many do not know who or what we perform. Nor do they know what a

LAc does and how this is different from anyone else doing acupuncture. We

appear to be the only healthcare profession where this does not occur. I think

this is important.

 

>

 

> The issue of the FPD, if allowed, would most likely resemble the PT.

Educational change voluntarily preceded legislative change. The FPD would open

us up to this process. I am sorry if you took it as an absolute, it was meant

as allowing this to happen much easier. Many of the professional issues we have

are do to a lack of leadership, communication and courage to act.

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine

 

> hobbs.valeriehobbs

 

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:59 +0000

 

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I

disagree with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from

your opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate

level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to

Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all

licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the

patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has

been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in

their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a

move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I

think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what

other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I

would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone

conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The

reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your

thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate

debate.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Valerie Hobbs, L Ac

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Valerie,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our

current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree

and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A

FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD,

that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education

would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation.

That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's

authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help

of our state associations.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Chinese Medicine

 

>

 

> > hobbs.valeriehobbs@

 

>

 

> > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000

 

>

 

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let

you know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most

recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to

change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time

the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I

just want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is

most definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original

motion, brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1@> wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Kim,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and

not descriptive of who or what we represent.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago.

The master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could

not otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical

internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their

knowledge base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded

clinical and greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own

standards and stop shooting for the lowest bar.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ________

 

> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

Hotmail.

 

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

 

>

 

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Valerie,

 

The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are.

When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find

accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the

message to them. The times we live in demand this.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

hobbs.valeriehobbs

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the

highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is

still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use

L. Ac. We coexist.

 

 

 

As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and

the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA

nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public

need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing.

 

 

 

All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to

investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable.

 

 

 

Valerie

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do

not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational

level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the

DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title

is still PT.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I hope I got it.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your

inbox.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\

-US:WM_HMP:042010_2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jessica,

 

Understood but do not expect much w/o the visual evidence. I will give it to

you that it appears odd but beyond that, no such luck.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine

shantileigh

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:58:03 -0400

RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike,

 

 

 

I am not scanning each of the 2,000+ signatures for your review, but you are

welcome to come and look at them in person anytime. Just let me know when

you'll be in Maryland...

 

 

 

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

 

> naturaldoc1

 

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:50:03 +0000

 

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

> Jessica,

 

>

 

> Good to note but your photos only show you standing in front of a door next to

an ACAOM sign. Not really proof of signatures.

 

>

 

> I mean you no disrespect but much of your response appears to be hearsay.

Hyperlinks were not requested but would be informative if they showed visual

evidence. I find this interesting but not conclusive of the anti-position.

Hopefully when ACAOM is more fully staffed, we will get a response.

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

 

> shantileigh

 

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:28:07 -0400

 

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mike, you raised questions about " proof, " confirmation of receipt, and date of

delivery.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I personally delivered the signatures to ACAOM on Wednesday, January 13th.

Here are pictures of me standing outside the ACAOM offices with the paperwork:

http://www.facebook.com/jessica.feltz?v=photos & ref=profile#!/album.php?aid=13850\

4 & id=541609631

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I have the signature of Lillie Williams confirming her receipt of our records.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> John Weeks even covered the story in the Integrator Blog:

http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=624 & \

Itemid=189

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> According to ACAOM

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/ACAOM%20First%20Professional%20Doctoral%20Stand\

ards%2010.pdf), " The Commission received approximately 3000 letters and petition

signatures on the subject. "

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Over 2,000 of those signatures were in opposition to the FPD. I know, because

I counted them. Several times. I still have copies of everything in a box in my

living room, if you'd like to count also...

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> We have some more questions, too. You can find them detailed here:

http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/cans-official-letter-complaint-a\

caom-re-decision-fpd-standards

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Our complaint was made public on April 2, 2010.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Per ACAOM's policy 3.12, " Complaints Initiated Against ACAOM, " the Commission

is expected to respond to all complaints within 30 days.

(http://www.acaom.org/PdfVersion/Policies%20and%20Procedures%20Handbook%2007-08-\

08.pdf)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It is my understanding that Dort Bigg resigned from his position as Executive of ACAOM on March 16, 2010, and that there is no replacement.

(http://www.acaom.org/comm_staff.htm)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I hope this helps to answer some of your questions, and provides sufficient

hyperlinking, as previously requested...

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ~ Jessica Feltz Wolfson

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> CAN Board of Directors

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> naturaldoc1

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Kim,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I thought the real issue was about the study results, which people appear to

be claiming are in error. I cannot say that I have seen anything factual to

support your claim of wrong doing. I know this might not sit well but where is

your proof? I supplied a link to the study. There are many questions I have over

your accusations. Like when were the signatures supplied and was there

confirmation of receipt? ACAOM has set deadlines for sending these in. Was there

any limitation on organizations sending in collected signature or were they to

be supplied individually? I do not have these answers but would not mind hearing

more about what transpired.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ________

 

>

 

> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

 

>

 

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\

:T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...