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

doctoral folly continues

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Did he actually say that he was in support of this goal?

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>rw2

>

>

> Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:10:24 -0700

>

>

>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

What is a " professional MD degree " ? A bachelor, a masters, a PhD?

 

My intention was not to " compare " systems of education, it was to say

that 4-5 years in TCM is basic level education. It is not an " advanced "

study of TCM which any claim of a masters or doctorate suggests.

 

Sure, the US education system is obviously different but will calling

something a doctorate help TCM establish basic level education (4/5

years), then more advanced academic programs such as a " masters degree "

(further 2-3 years) and then finally a " PhD " requriing more study

again?

 

Personally, I don't care how the US structures its education system but

I do care what impression people walking around with " doctorates " with

what amounts to basic TCM level education in China and the impression

this gives our profession in the West.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 11/12/2004, at 2:23 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

>

>

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

> generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications.

>>>> The entire education system is different in the US. As you probably

>>>> know when you go the medical school in the US which is 4 years of

>>>> graduate school you get a professional MD degree ( a doctorate). So

>>>> you cannot compare the systems of education

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks Alon, this helps me understand the system.

 

So, what future can TCM education have in terms of further academic

education in this system if basic TCM starts with a masters designation

or " doctorate " course? What I am curious about is how one could get

higher education such as advanced studies and specialties that are

available in China. I know this is mute today, but I think it is an

important consideration for the future when such advanced courses will

be (and must be) available.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 11/12/2004, at 3:46 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

>

> Steve

> A professional degree in the US is different. Medical doctors (MDs) do

> not have a true doctoral level education. They only have 4 years of

> postgrad education. So you just cant compare it. With your system BM

> go to school 6-7 years out of highschool. Correct? In the US you first

> do 4 years of collage than go to graduate school. You cant get a PhD

> in the English system after 8 years of higher education. you may get

> an MS. So professional degrees in the US do not follow the usual

> academic criteria for a doctoral education. This is how it is here and

> therefore should be for us as well. You guys are confusing systems and

> designations

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Learn Western Science Go to Jail.

 

Regardless of all the western scientific studies and knowledge that I

process I can not dispense ginseng to treat diabetes. That is the present

law in the U.S. If I treat diabetes, liver cancer or hepatitis with herbs I

can be arrested and jailed. I can treat wasting and thirsting disease with

ginseng, I can treat Shao yang Disorders with Xiao Chai Hu Tang. I can save

the patient. Knowing how much panaxatriol is in ginseng will not help us as

a profession. Knowing that ginseng may be to hot for our patients will.

Knowing which herb and the dosage to add or subtract will further me.

Discussing liver fire or damp furthers me. The patient gets better.

 

 

Any herb used to treat any disease is classified as a " new drug " and

requires a federal license. So if I speak western-eze I get arrested, the

patient and our profession, dies.

 

 

maybe what we should do is rename the title M.D. to Doctor TM to acknowledge

how the system has become so syndicated.

my sincere apologies to all the many good doctors and Dr. Nurses, PhD., and

PhD ad infinite

 

CM/TCM has a language, a history, a process, and above all has -- results.

Maybe we should all blame Weisman, Flaws and all the others who translated

so much, contributed so much, but forgot to give us a name!

 

 

Ed Kasper LAc. Santa Cruz, CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> 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.

 

This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our students

couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have MAs and

MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

 

One of my students has a MS from UCLA in engineering. He told me that three

of his teachers at Yo San are better than any teacher he had in any of his

other educational settings.

 

Of course, this is just one isolated comment.

 

Julie Chambers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I find this strange that we do not understand what the reqs are for ND and

DC as far as the western sciences. Most programs are equal to MD in this

area or better. I am curious as to where people get the idea that people do

not take these practitioners seriously. They do in my state. They are much

more respected than we are. Individual practitioners are not a profession,

that takes some time to establish. I think we can all agree that the DC

have come along way. They have overcome a strong opponent. We should take

notice lest we have to reinvent the wheel. I know that the ND are on course

to cut the learning curve of the DC by using these same concepts

(educational, licensing, boards, etc). When we speak of doctoral training

for ouselves we should not think that we are going to inflict the modern

medical school onto our colleagues, that would not provide them with enough

time, money or ability to assimilate it. When these discussion come up I

hear no dialogue about programs from China, Japan or Korea and the direction

that they are taking. They have programs that include a heavy western

sciences component as well as TCM/OM. We need to be inline with them or we

risk splitting from them. These countries are focused on a biological

medicine. Research is conducted in the areas of physics and biology and

TCM/OM relationship to these sciences. I have thought for years that

phsycis has a lot more to do with OM/TCM than many of the others. Later.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Musiclear

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:14:45 EST

>

>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

Chris,

I have seen the way it is and so have many of my classmates and colleagues

who are no longer in practice due to tough times. I have also spent

additional time working in the medical insurance industry for large

hospitals. The truth is that money for acupuncture and other CAM procedures

was there and is not now. We all are having to fight for marketshare. This

has a negative trend that effects the economics of who can afford us and how

many practitioners will survive. We become a lot smaller if fewer

insurances cover us. That is a simply fact. As for the other groups, they

did accomplish something that I hope we can someday, uniform standards.

The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

legislators that we are on an equal footing. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Musiclear

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:51:07 EST

>

>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

You are confusing degree with licensure. They are two separate issues.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:54:23 -0800

>

>Steve

>Also in the US MD (medical doctor) does not apply highest level of

>education. It does not even allow you to have a license to work. It just

>means you fished medical school. You will need one additional year of

>internship to get a basic license. With this license if you then do not go

>on to get additional 3-6 years of residency you cannot even get malpractice

>insurance or get privileges in hospitals in most regions of the country.

>Only in rural areas. So as you can see the system is a bit different.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

B I N G O !

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:27:20 -0800

>

>with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone really think the

>public respects their titles.

> >>>>Actually i think many do, a lot more than ours but not because its a

>so-called Dr but because they did it via the education system.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What rock have you been hiding under?

The DC have gained a lot of respect due to hard educational standards.

People respect them at least where I have lived in MN and CA. They were

also able to achieve legislative victories due to numbers of supporters and

money. They did not achieve this just because they had numbers and an

organization. Let's be truthful, they also had a lot of public supporters.

Secondly, we have a poor legislative record nationally. The fact that some

states have acupuncture only or no tui na or herbs is proof positive of

this. Additional victories would include provisions allowing for other

providers and the lack of insurance parity, which means that other providers

who perform acupuncture as a covered benefit must be paid while it is an

option for them to pay us. With a few more victories like these I can see a

great future. I think that these other groups have gained a lot more

respect from others and for themselves. We have a long way to go.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:48:12 -0000

>

>

> " 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

I agree also. So why are we not looking at creating programs that are more

inline with theirs?

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:00:50 -0800

>

>We need to be inline with them or we

>risk splitting from them.

> >>>I agree and they have much more experience in what is necessary to

>learn to become a safe and effective practitioner.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I've read a fair amount of this discussion and my opinion has been

swaying back and forth, and I still do not know for sure what I

think. But here are some thoughts:

 

1. It seems to me that calling ourselves " doctors " is a really,

really good way to make the MD's feel truly more threatened by us.

 

2. I'm not sure what the plan is---will people who only study

acupuncture still be called " acupuncturists " , while those of us with

additional herbal degrees be called, " Doctor " ? If so, I think that

the medical profession might become more and more comfortable with

the " acupuncturists " in our professional while targeting

the " doctors " as being a threat....it seems like a good way to draw

attention to those of us who practice herbal medicine, and I don't

mean GOOD attention. I do realize that they are already starting to

come our way, but I think this will be like a whistle.

 

3. I agree that we deserve the respect that is traditionally given

to doctors, but I don't know if taking on their title is the best way

to get it. I think that they are starting to become comfortable with

the idea of welcoming " acupuncturists " into the system...but do you

really think they are anywhere near being comfortable with DOCTORS

entering? No, they want to think of us as an allied health field.

Maybe we shouldn't accept that standard, but I'm thinking we should

accept the step in the door and then let the public come to see what

we have to offer. If they have a chance, I think they will come to

want us enough to give us the clout we desire. We can be the " anti-

doctors " who REALLY heal, the ones who get to the root of the

problem, the ones who acknowledge the mind-body-spirit. But if we

call ourselves " doctor " we may never get our foot in the door for

them to find out.

 

4. I wholeheartedly agree that our educational standards need to

improve. But even more importantly, we need to have more ways to

work under an experienced practitioner when we graduate before

starting out on our own. I got the basics in school, which would be

enough if I was working under someone regularly. Instead I try to

collect as many people as possible to ask questions when I need to.

 

5. But who knows, maybe the doctor thing is a good idea. It probably

would improve the educational standards, which would be good. If so,

I think those of us who have already been practicing should be

grandfathered in. Its absurd to picture someone with 10 years

experience being considered below a new " doctor " graduate.

 

Laura

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " mike Bowser "

<naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> I agree also. So why are we not looking at creating programs that

are more

> inline with theirs?

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> > " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

> >

> >

> >Re: doctoral folly continues

> >Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:00:50 -0800

> >

> >We need to be inline with them or we

> >risk splitting from them.

> > >>>I agree and they have much more experience in what is

necessary to

> >learn to become a safe and effective practitioner.

> >

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

So what you are saying is that we should increase the time and the cost

of our education so we can file for insurance?

 

I find the idea of uniform standards in treatment to be a double edge

sword. It sound like a good idea at first glance, but will potentially take a

lot of creativity out of our profession.

 

There are numerous modalities of Acupuncture around the world. The

protocols are all somewhat different. Which is " Right " ? Which is going to be

the

accepted standard? Who is going to decide what we get reimbursed for?

 

It is this standardization that has given the HMOs and Insurance

companies the control in patient care in western medical community.

Standardization

has killed quality patient care. It has put free thinking intelligent people

who may have come up with creative ways to actually deal with disease and put

them in a box that is condoned by a pencil pusher. Step out of the box and

potencially lose your practice.

 

I disagree with your view of the direction we should go to the core.

 

You suggest ideas that may sound good on the surface, but will end up

really causing problems that will likely distort and distroy the foundation of

our profession.

 

One way to break the monopoly of the western medical model is to show

the legislators that there are effective and cheaper treatments available

that will actually cure disease rather than just manage symptoms with expensive

long term drug intervention.

 

Another way to break the monopoly is to compare the results of the

western medical model to reason. No matter which figures you use, deaths

resulting

from standard medical practices is way,, way,,,, way to high. I idea of " fist

do no harm " is very important.

 

If we can show effective alternative treatments and ways to prevent the

major common medical problems of our industrialized societies, then we can

break the monopoly.

 

Cost saving treatment and prevention of disease, will break the monopoly.

 

Not tiles. Nor longer hours in school.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/9/2004 11:42:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

Chris,

I have seen the way it is and so have many of my classmates and colleagues

who are no longer in practice due to tough times. I have also spent

additional time working in the medical insurance industry for large

hospitals. The truth is that money for acupuncture and other CAM procedures

was there and is not now. We all are having to fight for marketshare. This

has a negative trend that effects the economics of who can afford us and how

many practitioners will survive. We become a lot smaller if fewer

insurances cover us. That is a simply fact. As for the other groups, they

did accomplish something that I hope we can someday, uniform standards.

The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

legislators that we are on an equal footing. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

Doctor is a term which has several meanings, one of which is MD. Although

in this day and age I hear more and more laypersons calling their allopath

" MD " . The public has become more savy to there being others who might

provide care and have a doctorate degree. Having a title that is different

than our licensure is odd at best. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " heylaurag " <heylaurag

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:50:24 -0000

>

>

>I've read a fair amount of this discussion and my opinion has been

>swaying back and forth, and I still do not know for sure what I

>think. But here are some thoughts:

>

>1. It seems to me that calling ourselves " doctors " is a really,

>really good way to make the MD's feel truly more threatened by us.

>

>2. I'm not sure what the plan is---will people who only study

>acupuncture still be called " acupuncturists " , while those of us with

>additional herbal degrees be called, " Doctor " ? If so, I think that

>the medical profession might become more and more comfortable with

>the " acupuncturists " in our professional while targeting

>the " doctors " as being a threat....it seems like a good way to draw

>attention to those of us who practice herbal medicine, and I don't

>mean GOOD attention. I do realize that they are already starting to

>come our way, but I think this will be like a whistle.

>

>3. I agree that we deserve the respect that is traditionally given

>to doctors, but I don't know if taking on their title is the best way

>to get it. I think that they are starting to become comfortable with

>the idea of welcoming " acupuncturists " into the system...but do you

>really think they are anywhere near being comfortable with DOCTORS

>entering? No, they want to think of us as an allied health field.

>Maybe we shouldn't accept that standard, but I'm thinking we should

>accept the step in the door and then let the public come to see what

>we have to offer. If they have a chance, I think they will come to

>want us enough to give us the clout we desire. We can be the " anti-

>doctors " who REALLY heal, the ones who get to the root of the

>problem, the ones who acknowledge the mind-body-spirit. But if we

>call ourselves " doctor " we may never get our foot in the door for

>them to find out.

>

>4. I wholeheartedly agree that our educational standards need to

>improve. But even more importantly, we need to have more ways to

>work under an experienced practitioner when we graduate before

>starting out on our own. I got the basics in school, which would be

>enough if I was working under someone regularly. Instead I try to

>collect as many people as possible to ask questions when I need to.

>

>5. But who knows, maybe the doctor thing is a good idea. It probably

>would improve the educational standards, which would be good. If so,

>I think those of us who have already been practicing should be

>grandfathered in. Its absurd to picture someone with 10 years

>experience being considered below a new " doctor " graduate.

>

>Laura

>

>

>

>

>

>

> , " mike Bowser "

><naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> > I agree also. So why are we not looking at creating programs that

>are more

> > inline with theirs?

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> > > " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

> > >

> > >

> > >Re: doctoral folly continues

> > >Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:00:50 -0800

> > >

> > >We need to be inline with them or we

> > >risk splitting from them.

> > > >>>I agree and they have much more experience in what is

>necessary to

> > >learn to become a safe and effective practitioner.

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

You missed the boat on what I said. The level and consistency of our

education as well as requirements are looked at and scrutinized by the

insurance industry, state legislators and other medical providers. This

needs to have uniformity. Most practitioners would want to have a choice

about whether or not to take insurance or at least provide a superbill to

their patients. I am in favor of having a choice. Right now we are losing

ours.

 

I am not encouraging limited standards for care although this is happening

in my state (MN) for MD and DC. Our state government has now passed

legislation to regulate and reward physicians for following state guidelines

for treatment. Scarry that the government is now into medicine and this

affects our choice of care and also limits new methods and discovery. It

also provides an immunity to prosecution, even if you create a blunder, for

following their guidelines.

 

If you want to talk about respect for other traditions of acupuncture than

we need to change the licensing exams and school curricula to allow for more

inclusion. Right now its TCM, TCM, TCM. That is another story.

 

In the end Chris, I would ask that you review what has been happening in the

last 4-5 years with reimbursement. This determines where a patient will go

in many cases and reflects a level of respect for said profession by the

insurers and legislators. We have been going backwards as is very evident

from the CA changes to work comp laws. This is one area where we excelled

in lowering cost and we have lost our status. Insurance companies are

denying coverage or claiming that it be provided by an MD. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Musiclear

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:34:09 EST

>

>

>

> So what you are saying is that we should increase the time and the

>cost

>of our education so we can file for insurance?

>

> I find the idea of uniform standards in treatment to be a double edge

>sword. It sound like a good idea at first glance, but will potentially

>take a

>lot of creativity out of our profession.

>

> There are numerous modalities of Acupuncture around the world. The

>protocols are all somewhat different. Which is " Right " ? Which is going to

>be the

>accepted standard? Who is going to decide what we get reimbursed for?

>

> It is this standardization that has given the HMOs and Insurance

>companies the control in patient care in western medical community.

>Standardization

>has killed quality patient care. It has put free thinking intelligent

>people

>who may have come up with creative ways to actually deal with disease and

>put

>them in a box that is condoned by a pencil pusher. Step out of the box and

>potencially lose your practice.

>

> I disagree with your view of the direction we should go to the core.

>

> You suggest ideas that may sound good on the surface, but will end up

>really causing problems that will likely distort and distroy the foundation

>of

>our profession.

>

> One way to break the monopoly of the western medical model is to

>show

>the legislators that there are effective and cheaper treatments available

>that will actually cure disease rather than just manage symptoms with

>expensive

>long term drug intervention.

>

> Another way to break the monopoly is to compare the results of the

>western medical model to reason. No matter which figures you use, deaths

>resulting

>from standard medical practices is way,, way,,,, way to high. I idea of

> " fist

>do no harm " is very important.

>

> If we can show effective alternative treatments and ways to prevent

>the

>major common medical problems of our industrialized societies, then we can

>break the monopoly.

>

> Cost saving treatment and prevention of disease, will break the

>monopoly.

>

> Not tiles. Nor longer hours in school.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 12/9/2004 11:42:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>naturaldoc1 writes:

>Chris,

>I have seen the way it is and so have many of my classmates and colleagues

>who are no longer in practice due to tough times. I have also spent

>additional time working in the medical insurance industry for large

>hospitals. The truth is that money for acupuncture and other CAM

>procedures

>was there and is not now. We all are having to fight for marketshare.

>This

>has a negative trend that effects the economics of who can afford us and

>how

>many practitioners will survive. We become a lot smaller if fewer

>insurances cover us. That is a simply fact. As for the other groups, they

>did accomplish something that I hope we can someday, uniform standards.

>The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

>legislators that we are on an equal footing. Later

>Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Bob,

 

Give me a few days - I'll put together a " shopping " list of to-do items and post

it here.

 

Roger

 

 

>______________________

>Message: 17

> Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:31:16 -0000

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>

>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

 

 

 

 

 

---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

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.

>>>I agree and that is what we should be pushing for

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications.

>>>The entire education system is different in the US. As you probably know when

you go the medical school in the US which is 4 years of graduate school you get

a professional MD degree ( a doctorate). So you cannot compare the systems of

education

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone really think the

public respects their titles.

>>>>Actually i think many do, a lot more than ours but not because its a

so-called Dr but because they did it via the education system.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

How many patients refer to their naturopaths and chiroprators

as " my doctor " .

>>>>I may be in lala land ie Berkeley but here quite a few

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

little

hoover report strongly favors integration and strongly opposes parity

>>>And they did so strongly based on education levels

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Again, consider NDs and DCs. Are they being invited into HMOs? No.

will they ever?

>>>Where are you living, many HMO's have DCs on their panels. I have no idea how

NDs are doing.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" yet we are not there "

 

 

>>>And that is what kills me. Too many in this profession talk like we should

stay still. We need to develop our education until we can gain the full scope of

modern Oriental medicine taught at a university level and environment. Its too

bad that so many practitioners sound like representatives of our inapt schools

defending lack of progress and standards. These money making institutions have

blocked our progress for over 10 years that i have been involved in this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Obviously in this society MDs hold a much higher standing than any other medical

professional and rightly so (just look at their level of training and entrance

requirements). They even hold a higher standing than DOs which go through almost

identical training. This just goes to show you that education done within the

excepted education system is the best way to build our standing and also the

educational standards and requirements. However, this profession is full of

people that would loose from such changes and so they have done anything they

can to block such progress. This has even involved many in the CUE and course

teaching business.

 

 

 

 

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...