DAOM entry or not

[Guest guest]

Student preferences on their own are an insufficient reason to change anything. Much more important is the effect on the profession of Oriental medicine in the context/s in which it is practiced in the US. The requirement that herbs and acupuncture be combined in training has served the profession very well so far, and I cannot see what has changed so that we should want to change that.

>>>>>I agree. If we want to create a true medical profession we need to create professionals that are seen as the experts of the field and that includes all aspects of OM. Not every practitioner needs to be a expert in all facets of the art. But he/she should be trained in all of them just as other medical profession do. If we just want to be seen as technical training schools then we can have acupu, herb, bodywork, exercise, nutrition schools. An MD then would be needed to over see these technicians such as done with PTs, PA etc

alon

 

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...>

wrote:

> --

>

> I don't think you or anyone has shown that there is a good

> reason for divergence. Student preferences on their own are an

> insufficient reason to change anything.

 

It is probably not worth debating as it is not a viable option anyway. But I

still think people would be more knowledgeable in their modalities if they

specialized earlier. It may be that the preferences are rooted in different

abilities and sensibilities that are deeply ingrained if not inborn. If we

force

someone to do something for which they are fundamentally unsuited, then

they will not excel. I believe different skill sets dominate in the practice of

those who do solely acupuncture versus herbology. the fact some people have

both skills sets at a high level does not mean we can or should expect

everyone to. Or that we need to as a profession. In fact, we may lose our best

internal med specialists because the potential candidates have no interest in

acupuncture.

 

>

> As someone has pointed out, a majority of those surveyed with

> acupuncture only training, also prescribe herbs. This a very strong

> argument for insisting on combined training, regardless of student

> preferences.

 

 

that is an excellent point, but one which might also call for enforcing scope of

practice and granting herb prescribing rights only for those who pass an exam.

 

 

>

> As to the idea of a separate no acupuncture training in Chinese

> herbs, do you think this is viable for those without another license

> to lean on?

 

 

No, laws would have to change and I do not think it will ever happen. I was

just pondering what if...

 

> In my opinion, given all the factors to be considered at present, the

> educational system should be set up so that choice of modality

> specialization should not preclude the necessity to study both herbs

> and acupuncture.

 

you mean just like western med students need to study surgery and gyn and

derm, not just their interest. has this really served the public good, though?

Or has it created an outrageously expensive eudcational and medical system.

If people are going to specialize anyway, why not cut to the chase and save

everybody a lot of time and money. I do not think the cost of current

acupuncture education yields a reasonable ROI. Services already cost more

than insurance wants to reimburse or the public wants to pay. If education

was cheaper, services might be cheaper, insurance would be fair and salaries

might be a better reflection of educational investment. those are the reasons I

think it is perhaps worth studying this matter.

 

[Guest guest]

At 6:01 PM +0000 6/3/03, wrote:

you mean just like western med

students need to study surgery and gyn and

derm, not just their interest. has this really served the public

good, though?

Or has it created an outrageously expensive eudcational and medical

system.

If people are going to specialize

anyway, why not cut to the chase and save

everybody a lot of time and

money.

--

Because, as Alon has pointed out, that

would reduce us to the level of technician.

 

Of course western medical students need to

study a range of modalities and subject areas, but they are not

studying them a specialties until much later. At medical school they

get a first pass at skin diseases because physicians in general

practice need to be able to recognize their basic features, diagnose

simple common conditions, and make appropriate referrals. Doing so is

essential to the standards expected of a practicing physician. The

cost of doing so is a separate issue, and is driven by socioeconomic

factors quite separate from curriculum design. For example, training a

physician in the UK costs less then in the US, even though the

training is recognized as fairly equivalent.

 

I do not think the cost of

current

acupuncture education yields a

reasonable ROI. Services already cost more

than insurance wants to reimburse or

the public wants to pay. If education

was cheaper, services might be cheaper, insurance would be fair and

salaries

might be a better reflection of

educational investment. those are the reasons I think it is

perhaps worth studying this matter.

--

I agree its worth studying the reasons for

the cost of OM education, and talking about it in this forum. However,

I'm not sure I buy your premise that the ROI is insufficient. As Bob

Flaws pointed out with his five keys to a successful practice, it is

quite possible for the average practitioner to create a successful

practice; ie sufficient to justify the current cost of education.

Reducing curriculum requirements will not necessarily increase the

success rates of the resultant practitioners. After all, if a new

practitioner would now have an educational loan to pay off of $40,000,

and under a reduced curriculum that loan would have been $25,000, and

the practitioner has lower fees as a result, she is unlikely to

attract more patients as a result, and we're back where we started. In

both cases, there will be those who succeed and those who don't,

regardless of cost.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Good points, Alon. If we want to have a more specialized profession,

it would have to have to be multi-tiered, as Bob Flaws has suggested,

but with a 'scholar-doctor' to oversee the specialists. But in the

present scenario, to implement this would be akin to tearing up a

freeway and starting from scratch, with no alternative route provided.

The changes to the schools, licensure and everything else would stop

the profession in its tracks.

 

I for one support an entry-level DAOM, but over several years of

implementation. Whether one likes the 'mom and pop' school idea or

not, this is largely what we have, and few larger financed institutions

have taken up the challenge to produce Chinese medical schools. We

have to look at what the market can bear, and gradually move it ahead.

 

 

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 08:10 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> >>>>>I agree. If we want to create a true medical profession we need

> to create professionals that are seen as the experts of the field and

> that includes all aspects of OM. Not every practitioner needs to be a

> expert in all facets of the art. But he/she should be trained in all

> of them just as other medical profession do. If we just want to be

> seen as technical training schools then we can have acupu, herb,

> bodywork, exercise, nutrition schools. An MD then would be needed to

> over see these technicians such as done with PTs, PA etc

> alon

[Guest guest]

Acupuncture Today also publishes Dynamic Chiropractic. In the

Jun. 2, 2003 issue of DC, Dr. Arlan Fuhr has a good article titled,

" Dogma, Diveristy and the Health Revolution. " It can be read for free

at: www.chiroweb.com/columnist/fuhr. When I read this article over

lunch today, I had to check the cover page to make sure I wasn't

reading about acupuncturists.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 07:33 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>> In reality, students should be required to do a postgrad internship

> before they are allowed to practice indepedently. They should get

> paid for this internship. One year might be enough if it was 40 hours

> or more per week of clinic and nothing else.

 

I think this is a great idea.. ..but one, of course, that would face

great opposition in the profession at this point. An attempt to

mandate something similar in California was soundly defeated a few

years ago. As I've mentioned before, I strongly recommend to students

that they mentor, at least, with a senior practitioner for at least the

first year of practice. I have several L. Ac.'s who observe my

practice, and who share their difficult cases with me.

>

> I believe Mercy College is looking at creating something like this in

> concert with several hospitals in NYC. Blue Poppy Institute is also

> discussing the possibility of creating something like this here in

> Colorado. Something like a clinical finishing school. At the moment,

> we're thinking along the lines of providing room and board plus some

> classroom lectures in exchange for working in a clinic under

> very focused (apprentice-like) supervision. I've been wanting to

> create a CM hospital-cum-spa here in the U.S. for many years and I'm

> just about ready to actively try to mnaifest that. My idea would be

> for the spa to help defray the costs of the hospital.

>

I like this idea very much. I am excited to see such a proposition

offered, and I've talked up the 'TCM hospital' idea for years. A spa

might be a great way to go to develop this further. I wonder, however,

about insurance, legal costs, etc. for such a project. Count me in for

my support for such an undertaking.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> I like this idea very much. I am excited to see such a proposition

> offered, and I've talked up the 'TCM hospital' idea for years. A

spa > might be a great way to go to develop this further. I wonder,

however, > about insurance, legal costs, etc. for such a project.

Count me in for my support for such an undertaking.

>

>

 

Great! 100K would do nicely, thank you very much. I reckon we would

need to raise at least $3-5 mil.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I was thinking more in terms of 'moral support'

Oy, " if I were a rich man " .

 

 

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 03:19 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Great! 100K would do nicely, thank you very much. I reckon we would

> need to raise at least $3-5 mil.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

I for one support an entry-level DAOM, but over several years of implementation.

>>>Agreed and it should be regionally accredited

alon

[Guest guest]

I agree with Rory on this that Alon is correct. I even saved Alon's and Rory's comments for further use. MDs are trained as Renaissance men and women of science. With just the MD training they are not much good at anything, and when basic scientists see an MD coming, they hide the good tools. However, many years of a residency (on the job training) makes an MD good at something. In general MDs are good thinkers and administrators because they started out with a broad education and training. I agree with Alon that specializing in one's fundamental training will cause one to be nothing more than a technician. Also, I'm impressed by how short the training is at ACTCM and other West Coast schools for the master's degree. Maybe one option is to make specialization an option for the doctorate along with a host of other options that are more research oriented. Or make the doctoral students attend the masters program and then chose a special doctoral track at the end for either research or treatment skill specialization. This would be my favorite option. This allows all of the graduates of masters programs to re-enter and finish a doctoral specialization. Just a thought. Could be easier to administer this way.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

At 6:01 PM +0000 6/3/03, wrote:

you mean just like western med students need to study surgery and gyn andderm, not just their interest. has this really served the public good, though? Or has it created an outrageously expensive eudcational and medical system.

If people are going to specialize anyway, why not cut to the chase and save

everybody a lot of time and money.

--

Because, as Alon has pointed out, that would reduce us to the level of technician.

 

Of course western medical students need to study a range of modalities and subject areas, but they are not studying them a specialties until much later. At medical school they get a first pass at skin diseases because physicians in general practice need to be able to recognize their basic features, diagnose simple common conditions, and make appropriate referrals. Doing so is essential to the standards expected of a practicing physician. The cost of doing so is a separate issue, and is driven by socioeconomic factors quite separate from curriculum design. For example, training a physician in the UK costs less then in the US, even though the training is recognized as fairly equivalent.

 

I do not think the cost of current

acupuncture education yields a reasonable ROI. Services already cost more

than insurance wants to reimburse or the public wants to pay. If educationwas cheaper, services might be cheaper, insurance would be fair and salaries

might be a better reflection of educational investment. those are the reasons I think it is perhaps worth studying this matter.

--

I agree its worth studying the reasons for the cost of OM education, and talking about it in this forum. However, I'm not sure I buy your premise that the ROI is insufficient. As Bob Flaws pointed out with his five keys to a successful practice, it is quite possible for the average practitioner to create a successful practice; ie sufficient to justify the current cost of education. Reducing curriculum requirements will not necessarily increase the success rates of the resultant practitioners. After all, if a new practitioner would now have an educational loan to pay off of $40,000, and under a reduced curriculum that loan would have been $25,000, and the practitioner has lower fees as a result, she is unlikely to attract more patients as a result, and we're back where we started. In both cases, there will be those who succeed and those who don't, regardless of cost.

 

Rory-- Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " wrote:

> Great! 100K would do nicely, thank you very much. I reckon we

would need to raise at least $3-5 mil. >>>

 

 

Bob:

 

What would salaries for acupuncturists and herbalists be like at

your spa?

 

Keep in mind that the median salary for heathcare practitioners in

the US is $162,194 [the numbers are from Payscale.com].

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Or make the doctoral students attend the masters program and then chose a special doctoral track at the end for either research or treatment skill specialization. This would be my favorite option. This allows all of the graduates of masters programs to re-enter and finish a doctoral specialization. Just a thought. Could be easier to administer this way.

 

>>>>>I think we need the entry level DOAM in order to achieve what we want in the US medical environment. The longer we procrastinate on this the harder it will be to achieve our goals. I think its only a matter of a few years until many medschools will have good courses on OM. After which MDs will really fight for the turf

Alon

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr wrote:

> As Bob Flaws pointed out with his five keys to a successful

practice, it is quite possible for the average practitioner to

create a successful practice; ie sufficient to justify the current

cost of education. >>>

 

 

Rory, et al:

 

While SOME acupuncturists will, of course, be able to make 100K, we

also need to keep in mind that the MEDIAN salary of a family

physician---IMO roughly equivalent to our role---is about $115,000.

Specialists make more: the median salary for a general internist is

$119,998; and the median salary for a general surgeon is $205,303.

The median salary for all healthcare practitioners is $162,164 [all

numbers are from Payscale.com].

 

If money were qi . . . ! If it were only a matter of education and

clinical success rate, then the statistics between us and WM should

be reversed---shouldn't they? As I see it, we are faced with two

problems: the first, and most often discussed, is internal problem

regarding the competence of our education; the second, and most

ignored, is the external public image of our role and value in

medicine.

 

Changes in the first issue now have a less significant impact on our

salaries; while changes in the second issue does. If we only work in

our offices, progress may be sure but slow. In fact, more public

projects like Bob's Spa and more integration outside of our personal

offices and working in other institutionalized medical settings will

help our profession greatly move forward.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>>I think we need the entry level DOAM in order to achieve what

we want in the US medical environment. The longer we procrastinate

on this the harder it will be to achieve our goals. I think its only

a matter of a few years until many medschools will have good courses

on OM. After which MDs will really fight for the turf

> Alon

 

 

Ditto!

 

The MDs are already claiming that territory---fortunately there are

only about 2000 medical acupuncturists. Have we learned nothing from

the relentless self-promotion of people like Coke-cola---it's

nothing but sugar, coloring, flavorings, and water (until you add

rum and a slice of lime)?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I absolutely agree with Rory, Alon and Will. I do not want to see

more acu techs created because of insufficient training and I believe

that choices are made through education - not because something is too

much work or takes too much time.

Marnae

At 10:10 AM 6/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Student

preferences on their own are an insufficient reason to change anything.

Much more important is the effect on the profession of Oriental medicine

in the context/s in which it is practiced in the US. The requirement that

herbs and acupuncture be combined in training has served the profession

very well so far, and I cannot see what has changed so that we should

want to change that.

>>>>>I agree. If we want to create a true medical

profession we need to create professionals that are seen as the experts

of the field and that includes all aspects of OM. Not every practitioner

needs to be a expert in all facets of the art. But he/she should be

trained in all of them just as other medical profession do. If we just

want to be seen as technical training schools then we can have acupu,

herb, bodywork, exercise, nutrition schools. An MD then would be needed

to over see these technicians such as done with PTs, PA etc

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marnae

>>>Can you give me a contact person for Churchill Livingstone. I am thinking of submitting the 2ed edition of my book to them

thanks alon

my personal email is alonmarcus

 

[Guest guest]

I'll cast my vote here as well. For now, the doctorate can serve the

goal towards further specialization in either acupuncture or internal

medicine. I think the purpose of the 3-4 year masters program should

be to produce a general practitioner in herbal medicine and acupuncture.

 

 

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 07:00 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

 

> I absolutely agree with Rory, Alon and Will.  I do not want to see

> more acu techs created because of insufficient training and I believe

> that choices are made through education - not because something is too

> much work or takes too much time.

>

> Marnae

>

> At 10:10 AM 6/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>

> Student preferences on their own are an insufficient reason to change

> anything. Much more important is the effect on the profession of

> Oriental medicine in the context/s in which it is practiced in the US.

> The requirement that herbs and acupuncture be combined in training has

> served the profession very well so far, and I cannot see what has

> changed so that we should want to change tha

[Guest guest]

Rory;

I agree with your logic and view that practitioners should have both acupuncture and herb training as a basis to practice, both because it makes them better practitioners for their patients and because they tend to use herbs anyway, without training, later, when the market requires them to use herbs to compete.

The best way to deal with this ethical dilemma is to require herb training, but I suspect that we may end up having herbal training be required in order to practice it, by our professional boards. The problem with this is that, when this happens, we will see boards (many of which are not acupuncture boards, but medical boards) in states where acupuncture is not officially in our scope remove herbs totally from our ability to practice. I feel that this would have a very negative impact on our profession's ability to help patients. Even a poor herbalist who has been compentently trained does much better work than an untrained one, and our accreditation commission has worked to develop what these minimal skills should be for patient safety and relative effectiveness.

This would be a sad day for our profession (to have herbs taken away in many states), but would be a direct result of our own failure to self-police unethical practices. I applaud NCCAOM for pointing out the results of their survey showing this.

David Molony

 

 

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...>

 

wrote:

 

 

When

> students start to get the deeper knowledge that is out there regarding

> acupuncture, they can create a much more elegant and effective treatment -

 

> and then the "power" or "magic" is really present.

 

---------

 

At 7:25 AM +0000 6/3/03, wrote:

 

I have found that students either tend to excel at acupuncture or herbs, but

 

rarely both.  I think demanding deeper study of acupuncture would only

detract even further from what I see as already all consuming, my study of

herbs.  And not everyone finds the study of both rewarding.  I know many

more students who reject herbs studies than those who reject acupuncture, but

 

the split is still there.  While you ar no doubt correct that these studies have historically converged and diverged on many occasions, perhaps the current convergence has outlived its usefulness and it is time to consider some more divergence. 

 

--

 

 

 

 

I don't think you or anyone has shown that there is a good reason for divergence. Student preferences on their own are an insufficient reason to change anything. Much more important is the effect on the profession of Oriental medicine in the context/s in which it is practiced in the US. The requirement that herbs and acupuncture be combined in training has served the profession very well so far, and I cannot see what has changed so that we should want to change that.

 

 

 

 

You say that students rarely excel at both acupuncture and herbs. That is not a reason that they shouldn't study both. What they choose to emphasize in their future practice is a choice they are then able to make, either in the final year of school or after graduation. The fact is that many students are not much good at anything yet, and many probably should not be pursuing a career in OM. I teach in two schools that offer a separate acupuncture only program, and these students are in general no better at acupuncture than those in the combined program. OTOH there are a few excellent students in both programs. My conclusion is that there are a few excellent students, and then most of the rest, and a few that terrify me. The reasons expressed by most students for doing the acupuncture only track are usually along the lines of 'I can't be bothered to do the extra work', and not 'my passion is for acupuncture, and I'll be happy to refer out for herbs'.

 

 

 

 

As someone has pointed out, a majority of those surveyed with acupuncture only training, also prescribe herbs. This a very strong argument for insisting on combined training, regardless of student preferences.

 

 

 

 

As to the idea of a separate no acupuncture training in Chinese herbs, do you think this is viable for those without another license to lean on? 

 

 

 

 

California has a successful working model for OM education and licensing. In any event I'd like see to some justification for divergence that takes account of all the professional ramifications, not just personal preferences.

 

 

 

 

currently, a number of schools teach acupuncture only programs. Yet no law sanctions the practice of chinese medicine solely as herbology, which is as many have practiced it. 

 

And I would point out that acupuncturists who go to acupuncture only schools

are often regarded as more skilled in this art than their peers who went to

 

more eclectic TCM programs.

 

--

 

As stated above, this has not been my observation. Yes, there are some highly skilled acupuncturists -- those I've met were mostly trained in both herbs and acupuncture, and often other modalities, and this didn't detract from their ability to do acupuncture with a high level of skill. Some were trained only as acupuncturists, yet they are not necessarily better than those who were trained in other modalities as well. There are also many graduates of acupuncture only programs who are, let's face it, less than exceptional. To make your claim meaningful would require a detailed study, and such a study might well not show a correlation between the number of modalities studied in school and eventual skill in any one of them for a large population of students.

 

 

 

 

  This is because they have been narrowly

focused. If this added focus led to better skills and knowledge, wouldn't the

same be true of an herbs only program. While some who go the route you

propose would end up true scholar doctors learned in all the healing arts,

many would end up jacks of all trades and masters of none.  My concern is

what approach would best serve the public and society.  And I think that may

be a tiered system with early educational specialization in modalities to insure

 

expertise, control costs, etc.

 

--

 

In my opinion, given all the factors to be considered at present, the educational system should be set up so that choice of modality specialization should not preclude the necessity to study both herbs and acupuncture.

 

 

 

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...>

wrote: > I absolutely agree with Rory, Alon and Will.

 

I think that training in both acupuncture and herbs is a fait accompli

due to legal/licensing requirements.

 

That being said, one could have a two track program where one

emphasized acupuncture or emphasized internal medicine as per my

previous suggestion to Todd. In this case, students would be

" knowledgeable " in both modalities but specialize in one or the other.

To think that students are going to be adequately trained in

acupuncture AND int. med. AND tuina AND qigong in the current number

of hours and the current educational system is a pipe dream. The tuina

I commonly seen performed by American acupuncture students is, IMO, a

farce. For example, I recently saw a graduate of Mercy College doing

" tuina. " If she had performed her rolling technique (guen fa) in front

of Dr. Ding Ji-feng or any of his students in Shanghai, she would've

been laughed out of the building. This graduate had " studied " tuina

but was not a proficient practitioner of that art.

 

To say that the current system has served the profession well to date

is an unsubstantiated opinion. Based on what we at Blue Poppy hear day

in and day out from a substantial proprotion of graduates (more than

10% of the total U.S. profession), the current educational process is

NOT serving our students well. If it were, Blue Poppy Institute would

not be so successful at providing basically remedial education to

graduates. We hear the following questions so often from graduates,

they are almost like a mantra: " How come we didn't learn this in

school? " , " How come this wasn't clearly explained in school? " , " Why

didn't my school teach this this way? "

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

At 6:01 PM +0000 6/3/03, wrote:

 

you mean just like western med students need to study surgery and gyn and derm, not just their interest ...

 

 

 

I wanted to amplify this slightly with a personal experience and a further commentary. As previously indicated I attended the first three years of medical school at U. of T. San Antonio. On the day my classmates and I arrived for orientation, we (223 of us) lined up for the cattle drive to get our paperwork, photo IDs, etc. One of the things we had to do was sign a contract. Most of my classmates probably had little idea what they were signing as this was a heady moment for a lot of people. I sat down off to the side with my contract and read it before signing it. By signing that contract we promised to spend no moneys of our own, from scholarships or from financial aid loans on any area of study other than our allopathic curriculum. I asked several of my classmates that day if they knew what allopathy meant. They did not.

 

The upshot of this over the next three years was quite unnerving from time to time. It was illegal for us to go to a paid seminar that was not approved by the AMA. There were no electives outside of our contracted curriculum. There were no electives for the first two years within our contracted curriculum. Every class was required. Only 2 medical schools of the (then) 124 taught clinical nutrition. Ours did not. Members of the U.T.H.S.C.S.A. faculty taught it for free at 12 noon to 1 PM, Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. Those of us that were interested attended and brown-bagged our lunch.

 

Another upshot was that representatives of the AMA were permitted to interrupt our lectures at any moment to make announcements. Often they wanted volunteers to carry out some verbal mandate in the community regarding vaccinations or fluoridation of municipal waters, etc.

 

The chances of an American medical student being able to study CM while a student in medical school is slim to none. On the other hand students at the osteopathic schools were allowed to take electives, including "manipulation". They were also allowed to apply directly to (and "match" for) residencies that MD students apply for. My small group physical diagnosis class was led by the chief of internal medicine at the Wilfred Hall Air Force Hospital near San Antonio. This gentleman was a Doctor of Osteopathy.

 

Given the legally limited training permitted to MD students, I rather doubt that MDs will ever pose much of a competitive threat to practitioners of CM in the area of CM treatment. Consider that physical therapists, occupational therapists, physician's assistant, and other such modalities are under the direct supervision of MDs. The proposed doctorate of Oriental medicine will produce people who should be supervising CM treatment. Having said that, I wonder about alt med in the acute care setting.

 

Perhaps Ta-Ya Lee can describe the protocols of supervision of her practice at Johns Hopkins. As I understand it, you are listed as a physician at that most prestigious of American institutions. And you practice Chinese medicine (acupuncture, moxa, herbal formula prescription, tui na). Do I understand this correctly? If this is true, then becoming a nurse practitioner and a licensed CM practitioner was quite a wise choice on your part. According to my understanding Johns Hopkins is listed in America every year as one the three most prestigious medical schools and by far the single most prestigious nurse practitioner schools. On top of that this august institution chose you, Ta-Ya, after your training to work in their clinic as a physician. I'm most impressed. How nice to have you on list to inform us of your work. How do you plead, Dr. Lee? ;-)

 

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College, Asia Natural

[Guest guest]

I wanted to amplify this slightly with a personal experience and a further commentary. As previously indicated I attended the first three years of medical school at U. of T. San Antonio. On the day my classmates and I arrived for orientation, we (223 of us) lined up for the cattle drive to get our paperwork, photo IDs, etc. One of the things we had to do was sign a contract. Most of my classmates probably had little idea what they were signing as this was a heady moment for a lot of people. I sat down off to the side with my contract and read it before signing it. By signing that contract we promised to spend no moneys of our own, from scholarships or from financial aid loans on any area of study other than our allopathic curriculum. I asked several of my classmates that day if they knew what allopathy meant. They did not.

>>>Wow. I think that is unique to that school. I know quite a few med students that did other training at the same time

alon

[Guest guest]

Given the legally limited training permitted to MD students, I rather doubt that MDs will ever pose much of a competitive threat to practitioners of CM in the area of CM treatment.

>>>I am already aware of several medschools that are looking into having an OM department.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon,

 

At the time I attended U.T. in 1985 - 1988, I was one of two legislative representatives of our AMSA chapter to Congress. In this capacity I got to meet reps from (at that time) the 124 other schools. I found out our program was different in some ways. But not in the manner of studying Allopathy. Only two schools of 124, Case Western and Stanford medical schools, had electives within their curriculum. CM was not among those electives. Nothing outside of Allopathic was an elective back then.

 

Note also that all accredited MD programs were in some manner sanctioned by the AMA. It was in the AMA that allopaths politically wrested medicine in America from homeopaths in the early 1900s. Thus, the AMA wants MD students on an allopathic track. Case Western and Stanford were viewed as wildly radical in the late 1980s by all concerned. I'll have to query the current AMSA members to see how much things have changed. I suspect it has not gotten a lot more flexible.

 

A pretty large group of UCSF medical students are currently doing an unauthorized (by the AMA) exchange program with ACTCM. On some occasions they come to my warehouse where the ACTCM herb TAs teach them about CM herbs. I'll ask these students what sorts of electives they have and if they intend to incorporate CM into their practice. I suspect that some would like to do that.

 

One UCSF family practice resident went to ACTCM in 1988 during her residency, but I don't know if she graduated. I think she had a hard time covering her 105 hour per week residency while also trying to attend ACTCM. Her name is Dr. Katherine Weiser. Perhaps you know her? She worked very hard to learn CM. No lazy MD that one.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

ALON MARCUS

Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:08 PM

Re: Re: DAOM entry or not

 

I wanted to amplify this slightly with a personal experience and a further commentary. As previously indicated I attended the first three years of medical school at U. of T. San Antonio. On the day my classmates and I arrived for orientation, we (223 of us) lined up for the cattle drive to get our paperwork, photo IDs, etc. One of the things we had to do was sign a contract. Most of my classmates probably had little idea what they were signing as this was a heady moment for a lot of people. I sat down off to the side with my contract and read it before signing it. By signing that contract we promised to spend no moneys of our own, from scholarships or from financial aid loans on any area of study other than our allopathic curriculum. I asked several of my classmates that day if they knew what allopathy meant. They did not.

>>>Wow. I think that is unique to that school. I know quite a few med students that did other training at the same time

alon

[Guest guest]

One UCSF family practice resident went to ACTCM in 1988 during her residency, but I don't know if she graduated. I think she had a hard time covering her 105 hour per week residency while also trying to attend ACTCM. Her name is Dr. Katherine Weiser. Perhaps you know her? She worked very hard to learn CM. No lazy MD that one.

>>>>Stepto did the SF collage of acup while going to UCSF med school. Just asked my wife, she did not have to sign any kind of contract, she went to UC Irvine. I also know quite a few more MDs that did concurrent study while at med school, quite impressive.

alon

[Guest guest]

I agree as well - I'm all for the entry DAOM. It's probably one of the

best things we can do to proactively defend our profession. Of course,

things won't be perfect right away, but in time, it will help to expand

our access and credibility, and create a job market. I'm excited to

hear of the opportunities at Mercy and other medical settings. I don't

think that any of us want to end up like NADA technicians, and most

state laws don't require us to be supervised. Like a post earlier this

week, it probably isn't financially reasonable for an MD to do

acupuncture, so there aren't many doing it. Again, you have a fairly

hip marketplace that would seek out acupuncturists for acupuncture

rather than MD's. That said, I'm moving to Missouri where the chiro's

are practicing with minimal requirements... ug... when do I start

throwing stone needles at glass houses? ;-)

 

Geoff

 

> __________

>

> Message: 23

> Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:37:57 -0000

> " James Ramholz " <jramholz

> Re: DAOM entry or not

>

> , " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> > >>>>>I think we need the entry level DOAM in order to achieve what

> we want in the US medical environment. The longer we procrastinate

> on this the harder it will be to achieve our goals. I think its only

> a matter of a few years until many medschools will have good courses

> on OM. After which MDs will really fight for the turf

> > Alon

>

>

> Ditto!

>

> The MDs are already claiming that territory---fortunately there are

> only about 2000 medical acupuncturists. Have we learned nothing from

> the relentless self-promotion of people like Coke-cola---it's

> nothing but sugar, coloring, flavorings, and water (until you add

> rum and a slice of lime)?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz