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

doctoral folly continues

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

I couldn't agree more. Why can't this profession define itself in any

independent manner, without the " me-too-ism " that threatens to confine

us to obscurity? The actual existence of this field in the West was

due to the innovative and idealistic if somewhat naive vision of a few

people from the 60's generation. While I've been a supporter of

doctorate programs until now, (I am not so sure at this point where I

stand), this profession needs some of that vision now, to define

ourselves for the future.

 

 

 

 

On Dec 6, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>

> For those doctor wannabe's, go to med school.

>

> We are not going to solve any of our problems by aping the title of

> doctor, either with volutnary post-entry level eduction or entry-level

> education going to a mandatory doctoral degree. If we continue to take

> the same kind of students and teach them by the same kinds of teachers

> in the same kinds of schools run by the same kinds of people, we will

> get the same kinds of graduates. If those same old-same old graduates

> call themselves doctors, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot for

> sure.

>

> I still say we should simply adopt our own, unique title. Even if it

> is a foreign word, like yi-sheng or yi-shi, with a little consistent

> P.R. effort we can get the public to adopt it within a year or so, no

> problem. Look how Madonna has made the word " kabbala " recognizable to

> everyone in a period of 12 months or less. Most Americans are

> comfortable with foreign title words like sensei, sifu, mullah,

> ayatollah, mujaheddin, rabbi, rebbe, lama, rinpoche, yogi, etc. Who

> knew what a fatwa was three or four years ago? Or an RPG or IED? Where

> did the words bagel, bialy, pizza, pannini, expresso, latte,

> bruschetta, salsa, fajitas, and tortilla come from? Not Anglo-Saxon;

> that's for sure. Americans adopted the title " barista " without any

> hesitation, and we all now know what a grande is. So why not Flaws

> Yi-sheng, Luger Yi-sheng, and Marcus Yi-sheng? All it would take is a

> will and some consistency of presentation.

>

> Are we so lacking in vision and the ability to think outside the box?

> The fact that we cannot come up with a more creative solution to the

> admitted issue of a workable title for members of our profession is

> itself testimony to our lack of smarts as a profession. But then

> Americans like our leaders to be average Joes, and average means just

> that: ho-hum, medium, ma-ma hu-hu, not exceptional, not superior, not

> great. Tant pis pour nous.

>

> Bob

>

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

but now that

thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of any

profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs.

>>>Not really since many students do not have undergraduate degree.

Alon

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a

degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with

licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people will

say

that their state will NEVER allow it,

>>>>Every state would have to allow it if it is regionally accredited.

Alon

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Zev,

Definition is good and that is what our profession is moving towards.

Failure to move forward could create a split in the profession between the

east and west. In all of our discussions on this topic I have yet to hear

any criticism of the many Asian practitioners who might use the title doctor

yet may not have the credentials nor education (illegal in CA). Nor has

there been any condemnation of the state licensing titles conferring such.

We have OMD, D Ac and AP. While typically the western usage of the term can

focus on either an educational degree or a general term for a physician.

Doctor does not = MD in all cases. Doctor implies the highest level of

training in a profession yet we are not. So if we are not then who is?

What we need to all understand is that the educational and economic times

are changing. I think we all want to see a future and hopefully more

practitioners than there are now. If this is true than we need to be able

to give them something other than just an TCM/OM education. Failure rates

are high for graduates. There needs to be clinical ops as well as research,

professional protections such as title and scope of practice, and greater

ability to work with and understand western medicine (TCM contains a lot of

western medicine). Lets not forget that practitioner's trained in SE Asia

come over here with a much greater knowledge of the body and illness. We do

not want to insult them nor do we want to alienate them. If we do nothing

than I would predict that these practitioners will continue to get there MD

here as well and support the more aggressive allopathic community in

assimilating us. We are now starting to see classes and programs in major

medical universities. It is only a matter of time before they ecclipse us.

No small school today can compete with a Harvard, Stanford, etc when it

comes to available resources. So I hope you all can see how important the

need to move forward is and why we all need to dialogue on how to do it. I

would love to see us just change the designation and keep the same hours as

they are adequate but that probably won't fly. Thanks for the dialogue.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>

>

>Re: Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:41:52 -0800

>

>I couldn't agree more. Why can't this profession define itself in any

>independent manner, without the " me-too-ism " that threatens to confine

>us to obscurity? The actual existence of this field in the West was

>due to the innovative and idealistic if somewhat naive vision of a few

>people from the 60's generation. While I've been a supporter of

>doctorate programs until now, (I am not so sure at this point where I

>stand), this profession needs some of that vision now, to define

>ourselves for the future.

>

>

>

>

>On Dec 6, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> >

> > For those doctor wannabe's, go to med school.

> >

> > We are not going to solve any of our problems by aping the title of

> > doctor, either with volutnary post-entry level eduction or entry-level

> > education going to a mandatory doctoral degree. If we continue to take

> > the same kind of students and teach them by the same kinds of teachers

> > in the same kinds of schools run by the same kinds of people, we will

> > get the same kinds of graduates. If those same old-same old graduates

> > call themselves doctors, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot for

> > sure.

> >

> > I still say we should simply adopt our own, unique title. Even if it

> > is a foreign word, like yi-sheng or yi-shi, with a little consistent

> > P.R. effort we can get the public to adopt it within a year or so, no

> > problem. Look how Madonna has made the word " kabbala " recognizable to

> > everyone in a period of 12 months or less. Most Americans are

> > comfortable with foreign title words like sensei, sifu, mullah,

> > ayatollah, mujaheddin, rabbi, rebbe, lama, rinpoche, yogi, etc. Who

> > knew what a fatwa was three or four years ago? Or an RPG or IED? Where

> > did the words bagel, bialy, pizza, pannini, expresso, latte,

> > bruschetta, salsa, fajitas, and tortilla come from? Not Anglo-Saxon;

> > that's for sure. Americans adopted the title " barista " without any

> > hesitation, and we all now know what a grande is. So why not Flaws

> > Yi-sheng, Luger Yi-sheng, and Marcus Yi-sheng? All it would take is a

> > will and some consistency of presentation.

> >

> > Are we so lacking in vision and the ability to think outside the box?

> > The fact that we cannot come up with a more creative solution to the

> > admitted issue of a workable title for members of our profession is

> > itself testimony to our lack of smarts as a profession. But then

> > Americans like our leaders to be average Joes, and average means just

> > that: ho-hum, medium, ma-ma hu-hu, not exceptional, not superior, not

> > great. Tant pis pour nous.

> >

> > Bob

> >

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

It would be far easier to get a license changed to doctor or physician if we

actually had such programs as first entry. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>acuman1

>

>

>Re: Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:46:32 EST

>

>

>In a message dated 12/7/04 11:45:47 AM, naturaldoc1 writes:

>

>

> > Bob,

> > The same logic would then hold true that if you want the title Yi sheng

>then

> > one should move to China. Those of us in the states, may want to be

> > respectfully called " doctor " as it is a common title for numerous

>healthcare

> > providers who received the appropriate level of training.  Of course you

>can

> > always get a license in a state that provides this title such as Rhode

> > Island (D Ac) or New Mexico (OMD).  I wonder how the public would see

>this. 

> > Is this a better solution?  I tend to like the Florida AP designation. 

>What

> > do you think?  Later.

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

>Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a

>degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with

>licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people

>will say

>that their state will NEVER allow it, while it is all about politics and in

>5

>years those people are gone or just nay sayers who are trying to buck a

>trend or

>just be ornery. A title is merely a playing field leveler for a profession

>that now has an entry level of that title. Some people, usually those who

>have a

>personal interest that involves either pride or money, say " NEVER " , and

>that

>is ok.

>In Florida, you can be titled a physician, but not a doctor, because of

>turf

>problems that may someday change. In Pennsylvania, we would find it

>difficult

> to get the title physician, but doctor is possible. The advantage is a

>doctor degree designation is that it is available in every state, and

>generally

>recognized by other states.

>DAvid Molony

>

>

>

>David Molony

>101 Bridge Street

>Catasauqua, PA 18032

>Phone (610)264-2755

>Fax (610) 264-7292

>

>**********Confidentiality Notice    **********

>This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other

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

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

>that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure

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

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

>responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data

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

>intended

>recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for

>delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby

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

>storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have

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

>email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments

>from

>your system.

>

>

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Amen!

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>acuman1

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:46:28 EST

>

>

>In a message dated 12/7/04 11:45:22 AM, naturaldoc1 writes:

>

>

> > Our profession has been unstable for a long time. 

> > It is now manifesting this as more outside pressure is being put upon

>us, by

> > various governmental influences.  We have no national standard, please

>do

> > not say NCCAOM is a standard, I mean at the legislative level.  Second,

>we

> > missed the boat years ago by not making first primary professional

>doctorate

> > the standard.  Our predecessors, who did not like politics, chose for us

>a

> > lower road with legislation.  As a result, look what we have today, a

>mess. 

> > The current level of training is adequate for our profession to be a

>doctor.

> >

>

>Every other profession started as a doctorate and then increased its

>educational level. We did it backward, perhaps because we wanted to be

>barefoot

>doctors, saving the public with a cursory education in the beginning, but

>now that

>thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of

>any

>profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. It was a big topic of

>discussion, and the wrong people won. Oops!

>DAVE Molony

>

>

>

>David Molony

>101 Bridge Street

>Catasauqua, PA 18032

>Phone (610)264-2755

>Fax (610) 264-7292

>

>**********Confidentiality Notice    **********

>This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other

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

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

>that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure

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

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

>responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data

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

>intended

>recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for

>delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby

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

>storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have

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

>email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments

>from

>your system.

>

>

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

This would definitely change the perspective of politicians and the public.

It would not be so easy to deny us if this were to happen. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " alon marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:03:07 -0800

>

>Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a

>degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with

>licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people

>will say

>that their state will NEVER allow it,

> >>>>Every state would have to allow it if it is regionally accredited.

>Alon

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

By the time you add the undergrad science courses to the two years of

undergrad it looks pretty ridiculous. Why not just make it a Bachelor's

degree in OM with optional master's and doctorates? This would remove most

of the roadblocks known as western science courses. This is inline with the

recent LHC report anyway. This would also eliminate us from compensation by

insurance carriers but then we do not want that anyway do we? Basically,

reimbursement is tied to western medicine coursework and also to scope of

practice. I am currently in a blue state in the upper midwest where two

schools of TCM have little coursework in western sciences and L Ac's have no

insurance parity. That means that we may or may not get paid by the carrier

while DC and MD who perform acupuncture get paid. Hmmh, see my point? No

classes, no scope. No scope, no payment. Simple as that. By the way,

people go wherever their HMO sends them here.

 

> " alon marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:01:15 -0800

>

> but now that

>thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of

>any

>profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs.

> >>>Not really since many students do not have undergraduate degree.

>Alon

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" but now that thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's

level programs of any profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. "

 

Calling these " Masters level " programs itself is entirely bogus. To

then call them " Doctorates " would be an even worse lie. Length of

education does not equal quality of education. IMO, most of our

students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

teachers could not teach in such programs. If you want to have real MA

or MS programs, make the GREs an entrance requirement and require

teachers to have similar academic credentials as those hired to teach

real MA and MS programs in mainline academe. We are bullshitting

ourselves and our public calling these programs Masters level. Our

biggest problem as a profession is not our title but our unwillingness

to tell the public and oursleves the truth. Awarding ourselves bogus

degrees and titles like banana republic generals is not the answer.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Just to make things clear, I would not object to the title doctor if

our education and training was on a parr with Western MDs both in

terms of academics and clinical training. What I object to is

awarding ourselves bogus titles and then not living up to the

expectations associated with those titles.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Bob, et.al.,

 

This " masters " idea in the US education of TCM has always confused me,

and it only gets worse when something is called a " doctorate " level

education which has no real basis in reality in academic circles.

 

Here, in Australia (as it is in China), we have a 4 or 5 year Bachelor

for TCM. 4 years for either acupuncture (with basic herbal education

ie. patent use) or 5 years for both chinese herbal medicine and

acupuncture. While this structure is slightly different to that of

china; it is at least resembles professional TCM education. Australian

Universities have been consulting and working closely with SATCM in

China and our programs have the recognition of the SATCM to a large

degree (no red stamp however).

 

What we lack here is true Masters level education in TCM as well, this

is likely to change soon however as we get further along the road. We

do have " masters programs " for MD's etc that train them in TCM in 2

years and this concerns me as calling such degrees " masters " is a lie

in my view; it is in reality a study of an entirely new subject for 2

years.......not a FURTHER education in one area which would more

suitably entail the title " masters in TCM " .

 

My impression of the US system of education in TCM is that it is

generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications. If a proper 5

year B.Sc in enough for the Chinese for basic level, with masters and

PHD being serious additional study to this basis........why is it not

enough in the West? If a US doctoral degree does not go any deeper than

a normal B.Sc in China or Australia..........where is the opportunity

for REAL post-graduate education in the future?

 

Will there be a Masters Masters or a Doctorate Masters and then a

Doctorate Doctorate (tongue in cheek)?

 

Confused,

 

Steve

 

 

On 10/12/2004, at 2:51 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>

>

> " but now that thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's

> level programs of any profession, equivalent to most doctoral

> programs. "

>

> Calling these " Masters level " programs itself is entirely bogus. To

> then call them " Doctorates " would be an even worse lie. Length of

> education does not equal quality of education. IMO, most of our

> students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

> teachers could not teach in such programs. If you want to have real MA

> or MS programs, make the GREs an entrance requirement and require

> teachers to have similar academic credentials as those hired to teach

> real MA and MS programs in mainline academe. We are bullshitting

> ourselves and our public calling these programs Masters level. Our

> biggest problem as a profession is not our title but our unwillingness

> to tell the public and oursleves the truth. Awarding ourselves bogus

> degrees and titles like banana republic generals is not the answer.

>

> Bob

>

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

>

> Just to make things clear, I would not object to the title doctor if

> our education and training was on a parr with Western MDs both in

> terms of academics and clinical training. What I object to is

> awarding ourselves bogus titles and then not living up to the

> expectations associated with those titles.

>

> Bob

 

If you want the title doctor and want it to actually garner respect, there MUST

be a

residency requirement. with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone really

think the

public respects their titles. How many patients refer to their naturopaths and

chiroprators

as " my doctor " . Just as many as who will ever refer to us that way regardless

of the title.

Almost none. Have you ever been to a party of mainstream folks (even

left-wingers) and

been asked what you do and reply that you practice medicine. Then, after being

queried

further and it is discovered that you practice ORIENTAL medicine, most of the

guests

clearly feel they have been duped (despite the fact that I can talk WM with the

best of

them). awarding such a bogus title will open deepen the disprespect felt for

our

profession by other healthcare professionals who have truly earned such a title.

The little

hoover report strongly favors integration and strongly opposes parity. We have

a great

opportunity to fully integrate with the healthcare system (for those who like to

play

mainstream ball). We will likely blow this opportunity if we keep pushing the

idea of OM

as complete medical alternative. Alternative medicine is dead. We should work

towards a

future of complementary and integrative medicine. A title battle only insures

our continual

marginalization. Again, consider NDs and DCs. Are they being invited into

HMOs? No.

will they ever? No. Why? Because they have argued for so long that they are

total

separate healthcare systems that no one is willing to work with them despite any

more

recent conciliatory gestures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote

<<< Doctor implies the highest level of training in a profession yet we are

not. >>>

 

not true as for those in the American nursing community a nurse may obtain

the highest level of proficiency - a doctoral or PHD YET not allowed to be

called or referred to as " doctor " .

 

We need the vision that Z'ev referred to earlier.

And we do need this discussion as it defines who/what we do/are.

Just as this list is for the discussion of complexities involving Chinese

herbs (not for needles, lasers, tui-na, magnets, etc) and for standards that

we can strive for as well as be held to.

 

personally, I believe I am competent (must be cause california says so) but

believe that more training and even more training will improve my skills.

Yet I remain befuddled by the lack of direction and standards offered by my

profession. It all seems to be Madison-Avenue Hype. I do agree with the last

part of Mike's statement that " yet we are not there "

 

Again what makes this list valuable to me has been the discussion of the

complex herbal cases and use of herbs. I am guided by these open

discussions. Titles are for ego's, yes, but they help knowing from whence

the discussion springs forth.

 

It may just be an applied placebo [30% patients will get better just by

wearing a white coat] but a title that someone believes in, aspires to, and

is held accountable to, produces better results.

 

 

When I agonized over the California State Boards and their relationship

(value) to actual clinical practice, Miriam Lee told me " get your license

first, you can not do anything without first getting your license, then you

can learn "

 

Students are like clay that are shaped into an image by the profession.

The public hold an image of who their physician is.

Images (titles) are important

You can not have healing without an image.

 

Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I wholeheartedly agree with you and hope that others can see this as well.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:40:08 -0800

>

>We are now starting to see classes and programs in major

>medical universities. It is only a matter of time before they ecclipse us.

> >>>And even if they will only get a fraction of what TCM schools teach, in

>the US they will be viewed as the authorities in TCM because of their

>standing in the community. If we do not get our Dr programs regionally

>accredited we will loose any authority in CM as well as many of the

>legislative gains we have enjoyed.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

By this do you mean actually doing rounds in a hospital and in their

surgical ward? When you speak of the title doctor do you consider a ND or

DC with equivalent western science hours to also be respective and deserving

of said title? If not, why not? Lastly, how do you feel about our Chinese

counterparts usage of title doctor? Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:02:05 -0000

>

>

>Just to make things clear, I would not object to the title doctor if

>our education and training was on a parr with Western MDs both in

>terms of academics and clinical training. What I object to is

>awarding ourselves bogus titles and then not living up to the

>expectations associated with those titles.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Herein lies part of the problem. What should our programs impart in

knowledge both from eastern and western medicine? I happen to agree that we

need to reconsider what we offer. This need has been more pressing since

the LHC report was published. The schools may want to look at similar

structure of programs within both DC and ND schools. I see this type of

model as being a good place to start. Of course that would mean raising the

entrance standards from being a tecnical college to a graduate level

requiring undergrad and grad level sciences. Most programs seem to be

located in close proximity to larger colleges and could create teaching

agreements with them or have students take their sciences there. We need

more serious debate on both outlining the problems as well as solutions. I

think we all need to be active and have our voices heard not just the

schools or the associations. The more minds that work on this the better.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:51:29 -0000

>

>

> " but now that thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's

>level programs of any profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. "

>

>Calling these " Masters level " programs itself is entirely bogus. To

>then call them " Doctorates " would be an even worse lie. Length of

>education does not equal quality of education. IMO, most of our

>students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

>teachers could not teach in such programs. If you want to have real MA

>or MS programs, make the GREs an entrance requirement and require

>teachers to have similar academic credentials as those hired to teach

>real MA and MS programs in mainline academe. We are bullshitting

>ourselves and our public calling these programs Masters level. Our

>biggest problem as a profession is not our title but our unwillingness

>to tell the public and oursleves the truth. Awarding ourselves bogus

>degrees and titles like banana republic generals is not the answer.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Regardless of what one may think of the current administration, I agree with

Bob's analysis re medical monopoly. One of the few Congressmen I respect is a

libertarian Republican from Texas, Ron Paul, who I believe would be very

receptive to removing the medical monopoly. He has been a lone voice in

Congress, but many pay attention to him. There is a large libertarian wing in

the Republican party (as well as less savory elements).

 

Following is a sampling from Ron Paul's voluminous writings. If you read a few

of the articles, you will quickly realize that he has put a lot of effort into

explaining why government involvement in health care has been a disaster for

everyone except the drug companies. A lot of MDs (Paul is a former Ob/Gyn) are

getting fed up with the system also, and are retiring early in disgust. So there

is a lot of potential support for the Health Freedom agenda, even among many

doctors. Removing the medical monopoly is not simply a pipe dream - it is

already in process with many backers at all levels.

 

 

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

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

A listing of links to articles by Ron Paul " Texas Straight Talk "

See especially:

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst011998.htm

Jan 19, 1998: Government prescription for health is bad medicine

 

other health-related articles:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst050304.htm

May 3, 2004: Free Market Medicine

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst092004.htm

Sep 20, 2004: Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm

May 17, 2004: The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst100603.htm

OCt 6, 2003: Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst033103.htm

The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst120902.htm

Dec 9, 2002: Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst121498.htm

December 14, 1998: Medical costs can be cut with freedom

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst080904.htm

Aug 9, 2004: Police State USA

 

 

Related articles:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40365

Forced mental screening hits roadblock in House

Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children

Posted: September 9, 2004

 

 

http://www.garynull.com/issues/codex/aboutcodex.htm

Health Freedom is Under Attack

re: Codex Alimentarius, and Ron Paul's position on this issue:

 

" If the Federal Statute in question (19 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1) and also (a)(2) in

FACT protected our laws from harmonization to international standards which are

usurping our sovereignty, it would not have been necessary for Congressman Ron

Paul to introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act HR1146. " (ASRA " )

 

" Paul felt compelled to introduce ASRA because it is apparent to him, and to

Jeanne Grimmett of the Congressional Research Service, that our domestic laws

are not in fact protected by the aforementioned Federal Statute, due to the

threat of trade sanctions being imposed by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body

whenever we try refusing to harmonize our laws to an international standard.

There are many examples in which Congress has in fact caved to this threat of

trade sanctions. They are shown at www.iahf.com " US Laws Not Safe " section. "

 

 

 

Also, this is a good time to give support to the National Health Freedom

Coalition (NHFC). While various groups have been focused on grabbing larger

pieces of the health care pie for their own mini-monopolies, these folks have

been successful in helping to pass Health Freedom Acts in California, Rhode

Island, and Minnesota (home of Jessie Ventura, a libertarian governor) - many

more states are considering such. Health Freedom Acts are a good first step in

dissolving the medical monopoly - and the NHFC folks have been shrewd enough to

give doctors something too - they support not only health freedom for unlicensed

practitioners and their clients, they support the rights of MDs to recommend

natural remedies without being harassed by their own medical boards.

 

I know one of the board members of the National Health Freedom Coalition, and I

have a lot of respect for the integrity of this organization:

http://www.nationalhealthfreedom.org/nhfc/home.htm

If you want to do something to help out, ask them to put you in contact with

others in your state to coordinate action groups. I'm sure they would also

appreciate it if you became a dues-paying member.

 

 

 

" Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when

medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art

of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will

constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and

despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic

should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious

freedom. " --Dr Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

 

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

 

 

 

> Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:18:21 EST

> Musiclear

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>

>In a message dated 12/7/2004 2:02:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>pemachophel2001 writes:

>If you really want to fight this, then attack the root of the problem.

>That root is the Medical Practices Act that gave MDs a monopoly. This

>is unfair restraint of trade. The conservative Republicans who are

>currently in power are/should be/would be sympathetic to this

>argument. I have talked to Republican Senators who agree that the

>granting of this monopoly was a mistake and should never have

>occurred. This is essentially a freedom of choice and free market

>issue. It is the positive side to the current political situation.

>Repeal this monopoly (or at least make people aware of what it

>actually is) and you've struck to the root of the situation. Otherwise

>you're just clipping at the branches in a rigged system (as in rigged

>against us).

>

>Bob

>

>

> This is soooooo true Bob. What a simple and profound awareness.

>

> What is the possibility of repealing the monopoly?

>

> What a great option.

>

> Chris

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Actually your argument about the BS degree makes a lot of sense. I

mentioned this on a previous response because people tend to want to argue

about not having to take western sciences as a part of an advanced clinical

degree. For these people, I think it is time to become aware that we

practice a form of medicine. Having this western knowlege will open up more

doors for us as a profession. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Steven Slater <laozhongyi

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:27:28 +1100

>

>Hi Bob, et.al.,

>

>This " masters " idea in the US education of TCM has always confused me,

>and it only gets worse when something is called a " doctorate " level

>education which has no real basis in reality in academic circles.

>

>Here, in Australia (as it is in China), we have a 4 or 5 year Bachelor

>for TCM. 4 years for either acupuncture (with basic herbal education

>ie. patent use) or 5 years for both chinese herbal medicine and

>acupuncture. While this structure is slightly different to that of

>china; it is at least resembles professional TCM education. Australian

>Universities have been consulting and working closely with SATCM in

>China and our programs have the recognition of the SATCM to a large

>degree (no red stamp however).

>

>What we lack here is true Masters level education in TCM as well, this

>is likely to change soon however as we get further along the road. We

>do have " masters programs " for MD's etc that train them in TCM in 2

>years and this concerns me as calling such degrees " masters " is a lie

>in my view; it is in reality a study of an entirely new subject for 2

>years.......not a FURTHER education in one area which would more

>suitably entail the title " masters in TCM " .

>

>My impression of the US system of education in TCM is that it is

>generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications. If a proper 5

>year B.Sc in enough for the Chinese for basic level, with masters and

>PHD being serious additional study to this basis........why is it not

>enough in the West? If a US doctoral degree does not go any deeper than

>a normal B.Sc in China or Australia..........where is the opportunity

>for REAL post-graduate education in the future?

>

>Will there be a Masters Masters or a Doctorate Masters and then a

>Doctorate Doctorate (tongue in cheek)?

>

>Confused,

>

>Steve

>

>

>On 10/12/2004, at 2:51 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > " but now that thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's

> > level programs of any profession, equivalent to most doctoral

> > programs. "

> >

> > Calling these " Masters level " programs itself is entirely bogus. To

> > then call them " Doctorates " would be an even worse lie. Length of

> > education does not equal quality of education. IMO, most of our

> > students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

> > teachers could not teach in such programs. If you want to have real MA

> > or MS programs, make the GREs an entrance requirement and require

> > teachers to have similar academic credentials as those hired to teach

> > real MA and MS programs in mainline academe. We are bullshitting

> > ourselves and our public calling these programs Masters level. Our

> > biggest problem as a profession is not our title but our unwillingness

> > to tell the public and oursleves the truth. Awarding ourselves bogus

> > degrees and titles like banana republic generals is not the answer.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> > including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> > conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 12/9/2004 4:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

There is more respect for these other

groups than for us. If there was not then they would not have accomplished

so much with legislation.

 

 

You make so many assumptions about " the way it is " .

 

They have accomplished so much in legislation because they have a medical

monopoly and huge bucks which they throw at the legislators.

 

The way to a healthier world and prosperity of us, is going to be

breaking the monopoly not in gong to school longer and having a title.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What planet are you on? First, the DC's in particular are a part of many

HMO's while we are not, yet. Second, I have heard many a patient reference

their DC as " doctor " . Your usage of the terminology reminds me of what

alternative medicine was like 20 years ago. Doctor can be a general term

for anyone in healthcare or to an educational degree or to an MD. The last

usage seems to be slipping at least from sources that I hear. People tend

to use MD and many do not like them. There is more respect for these other

groups than for us. If there was not then they would not have accomplished

so much with legislation. Residency is not the answer. You might try

better educational standards. Right now we have programs that grant

degrees, diplomas and some have certification. This has got to change.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:24:30 -0000

>

>

> , " Bob Flaws "

><pemachophel2001>

>wrote:

> >

> > Just to make things clear, I would not object to the title doctor if

> > our education and training was on a parr with Western MDs both in

> > terms of academics and clinical training. What I object to is

> > awarding ourselves bogus titles and then not living up to the

> > expectations associated with those titles.

> >

> > Bob

>

>If you want the title doctor and want it to actually garner respect, there

>MUST be a

>residency requirement. with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone

>really think the

>public respects their titles. How many patients refer to their naturopaths

>and chiroprators

>as " my doctor " . Just as many as who will ever refer to us that way

>regardless of the title.

>Almost none. Have you ever been to a party of mainstream folks (even

>left-wingers) and

>been asked what you do and reply that you practice medicine. Then, after

>being queried

>further and it is discovered that you practice ORIENTAL medicine, most of

>the guests

>clearly feel they have been duped (despite the fact that I can talk WM with

>the best of

>them). awarding such a bogus title will open deepen the disprespect felt

>for our

>profession by other healthcare professionals who have truly earned such a

>title. The little

>hoover report strongly favors integration and strongly opposes parity. We

>have a great

>opportunity to fully integrate with the healthcare system (for those who

>like to play

>mainstream ball). We will likely blow this opportunity if we keep pushing

>the idea of OM

>as complete medical alternative. Alternative medicine is dead. We should

>work towards a

>future of complementary and integrative medicine. A title battle only

>insures our continual

>marginalization. Again, consider NDs and DCs. Are they being invited into

>HMOs? No.

>will they ever? No. Why? Because they have argued for so long that they

>are total

>separate healthcare systems that no one is willing to work with them

>despite any more

>recent conciliatory gestures.

>

>Todd

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 12/9/2004 4:30:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

pemachophel2001 writes:

I agree with Todd that DCs' and NDs' adoption and insistence on the

use of the title doctor is not taken seriously by most people. They

are not selected and trained with the rigor of MDs, and I think most

people understand that.

 

 

Do you really want to " corrupt " good people with the level of training

given to MD's? Take a look a the statistics. They kill a lot of people with

harmful, unnecessary drug and medical intervention. It is their way and if

students are fed their philosophies, we are going to lose open minds willing to

look past drugs and surgery.

 

One of the positive aspects of our profession in the past has been that

we were taught Chinese medicine as a system. We can correct imbalances and

cure disease.

 

Do MD's know how to cure disease???? They have to go outside their

training to understand how to effectively deal with most of the common health

challenges in our culture. And when they do, they have often been ridiculed and

dragged into court.

 

I personally don't want open minded " healers " being fed bogus information

about health care.

 

We are a separate system. We should know physiology and anatomy, and

possible drug interactions. Working with MDs as interns won't help us be better

Acupuncturists. It will more likely confuse good students into wondering why

inserting needles would do anything at all.

 

Taking down the monopoly is the best option I have heard in a long time.

 

If we join forces with the corrupt medical community, the desire for free

thinking open minded healers to join in our profession will diminish

tremendously.

 

If it was going to cost 75k and 6 years of longer to become an

Acupuncturist there is no way in ,,,,,,,heck,,,, I would have signed on. Nor

would the

majority of my class. Nor would it make me better at what I do. Classical

western medical training is by majority,,,, against life. We are for life.

Huge difference.

 

Making the entry point into this profession such a daunting obstacle is

foolish and will hurt us.

 

Chris

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" By this do you mean actually doing rounds in a hospital and in their

surgical ward? "

 

Yes, although I'm not sure about the surgical ward. But definitely

doing an internship and residency and doing rounds in all the other

departments.

 

" When you speak of the title doctor do you consider a ND or

DC with equivalent western science hours to also be respective and

deserving of said title? If not, why not? "

 

I agree with Todd that DCs' and NDs' adoption and insistence on the

use of the title doctor is not taken seriously by most people. They

are not selected and trained with the rigor of MDs, and I think most

people understand that.

 

" Lastly, how do you feel about our Chinese counterparts usage of title

doctor? "

 

It depends on what their actual degree was from China: MD, BS, MS, or

Ph.D. If they have an MD from China, I don't mind them using the title

MD (China) even though they are not licensed as a medical doctor in

the U.S. If they hold a Ph.D., I also don't mind them calling

themselves doctors as long as Ph.D. is appended after that title.

 

That being said, I did not propose the title " yi-sheng " because it

functionally means doctor. Literally, it means something more like

" [giver of] life [through] medicine. " And yi-shi means " master of

medicine, " even though functionally most Chinese gloss that as doctor.

I was looking for a title that can be applied to all professional

practitioners of Chinese medicine no matter what our actual degree. If

someone asked me what yi-sheng meant, I would say giver of life

through the practice of medicine. Then I would say this is a

traditional Chinese title for primary care practitioners. I would not

translate it as doctor. As mentioned before, doctor in the U.S. is a

legally protected trademark.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Roger,

 

Excellent. So how would you advise those of us that favor of this

approach to support it and get involved? I'm all ears.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" I have heard many a patient reference their DC as 'doctor'. "

 

Granted, those that go to them. But many more, who do not use them,

refer to DCs as quacks. These same nonbelievers may even politely use

the term doctor to these DCs' faces. Yet, if you ask them their real

feelings about chiropractic, they will tell you they don't think of

DCs are " real " doctors.

 

" There is more respect for these other groups than for us. If there

was not then they would not have accomplished so much with legislation. "

 

Again, false logic. DCs have accomplished so much with legislation

because of 1) their numbers, 2) their organization, and, 3) most

importantly, their money. Case in point: here in Colorado, the CAA has

a full-time office with paid full-time administrator plus three

lobbyists. The AAC (Acupuncture Assoc. of Colorado) does not have an

office, does not have a full-time administrator, and has one lobbyist.

If you've had any legislative experience, you know that numbers,

organization, and money equal favorable legislation, not " respect. " As

an extension of this, the NDs have never been able to pass liocensing

legislation in Colorado because there are so few of them here, much,

much fewer than acupuncturists. That's why we have better legislatory

success than them. Not because of how people view or respect them vis

a vis us.

 

In fact, I believe our profession (or at least MDs' and other

professional heathcare providers' idea about our profession) has more

respect than that of DCs and NDs. People generally know that Chinese

medicine is an ancient, mature, time-tested, widely used, professional

system of medicine. They know that China makes up 1/4 of the world's

population. In general, I think people are predisposed to grant us a

favorable impression which is then ours to blow. And blow it we often

do when people then try Chinese medicine and are disappointed by

failure by insufficiently trained, insufficiently professional graduates.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Ed,

I am not in disagreement with you. Maybe I should have clarified my point

about doctorates here as to primarycare practitioners. Regardless, it is

generally considered by the educational community that a doctorate degree is

the highest offerred in any profession. Of course in some fields there is

optional post-doctorate training.

You present another side of things that is also important. I think that

many practitioners on this site are confused about the different ways to

look at these issues. Getting your license first was good advice from Ms.

Lee. But before you get your license you must get your degree. There are

many things that our profession needs to address. As for the title, it is

not ego if it is a requirement to practice a given profession. I am not

professing this simply to say I want to be a doctor. I do happen to believe

that some of the Master degree programs have enough hours and provide an

adequate experience to use that title. We missed that boat. In todays

world, we must now plan to create a more integrated program that includes a

significant amount of western sciences. In the end, this helps us with

working with the allopathic community, more treatment options/understanding

and also medical employment ops. I do not know of many non-RN L Ac who have

been given this chance. Future students want to know on other message

boards what employment ops are out there. See the dilemma?

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Ed Kasper LAc " <eddy

>

>

> RE: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:34:59 -0800

>

> " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote

><<< Doctor implies the highest level of training in a profession yet we are

>not. >>>

>

>not true as for those in the American nursing community a nurse may obtain

>the highest level of proficiency - a doctoral or PHD YET not allowed to be

>called or referred to as " doctor " .

>

>We need the vision that Z'ev referred to earlier.

>And we do need this discussion as it defines who/what we do/are.

>Just as this list is for the discussion of complexities involving Chinese

>herbs (not for needles, lasers, tui-na, magnets, etc) and for standards

>that

>we can strive for as well as be held to.

>

>personally, I believe I am competent (must be cause california says so) but

>believe that more training and even more training will improve my skills.

>Yet I remain befuddled by the lack of direction and standards offered by my

>profession. It all seems to be Madison-Avenue Hype. I do agree with the

>last

>part of Mike's statement that " yet we are not there "

>

>Again what makes this list valuable to me has been the discussion of the

>complex herbal cases and use of herbs. I am guided by these open

>discussions. Titles are for ego's, yes, but they help knowing from whence

>the discussion springs forth.

>

>It may just be an applied placebo [30% patients will get better just by

>wearing a white coat] but a title that someone believes in, aspires to, and

>is held accountable to, produces better results.

>

>

>When I agonized over the California State Boards and their relationship

>(value) to actual clinical practice, Miriam Lee told me " get your license

>first, you can not do anything without first getting your license, then you

>can learn "

>

>Students are like clay that are shaped into an image by the profession.

>The public hold an image of who their physician is.

>Images (titles) are important

>You can not have healing without an image.

>

>Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist

>

>

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...