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

doctoral folly continues

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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.

 

 

>>>This has two sides. The problem is that you cannot trust drug companies to

tell you the truth regarding efficacy or safety. MDs often need such guides

since they are used to hear this info from drug raps. At Kaiser they do not even

let drug raps in, so that all drug formulations are created by pharmocologist

that look very closes at the research. A sad state for medicine this days

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I cannot comment regarding other educational programs but I know from my own

experience the acupuncture program that I graduated from as well as other DC's

will tell you the acupuncture program was not that difficult to get thru

compared to the chiropractic program.

 

If I had studied the same amount in in my chiropractic education as I did in my

acupuncture education I would have never made it past the 2nd term.

 

From talking to most individuals, they don't have a clue to the amount of study

that goes on to receive your DC degree.

 

In chiro school we spend approx. 8 hours per day in class, another 3-5 hrs

studying in the evening and catching up on what we didn't study on the weekends.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of studying to do in the TCM program just

not the same level of degree or difficulty.

 

I believe that most DC's and MD's that start and don't finish the TCM program is

because they think its easier than it is and don't want to spend that much time

out of their office's...

 

Just my perception

 

Brian

 

 

officeonmarcus wrote:

 

Bob (Flaws), of course you're entitled to your opinion, but how can you tell

that 51% of TCM students could not get admitted to a MA or MS program

>>>>Julie, I have been teaching LAc, MDs, DOs and PA-Cs for many years. I can

tell you there is no comparison between the amount of material LAcs and MDs,

DOs, and PA-Cs can handle. Most LAcs i have taught throue out the years need to

be spoon fed, you need to go very slow and they are unwilling to do much work

when not in class. A few years ago i taught a class in orthopedics at ACTCM, i

actually did not go through the materials very fast but 90% of the class got

overwhelmed, could not follow the materials. I have no experience with other

professional programs (ie not medical) so i cant compare MA students and LAcs

but i suspect Bob is correct.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Laura

 

You get right to the point here. This is the most realistic opinion

I've heard yet. Maybe we're naive as beginners but this really rings

true for me as well. Thanks. Right on!

 

Shanna

 

, " heylaurag "

<heylaurag@h...> wrote:

>

> 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

Bob (Flaws), of course you're entitled to your opinion, but how can you tell

that 51% of TCM students could not get admitted to a MA or MS program

>>>>Julie, I have been teaching LAc, MDs, DOs and PA-Cs for many years. I can

tell you there is no comparison between the amount of material LAcs and MDs,

DOs, and PA-Cs can handle. Most LAcs i have taught throue out the years need to

be spoon fed, you need to go very slow and they are unwilling to do much work

when not in class. A few years ago i taught a class in orthopedics at ACTCM, i

actually did not go through the materials very fast but 90% of the class got

overwhelmed, could not follow the materials. I have no experience with other

professional programs (ie not medical) so i cant compare MA students and LAcs

but i suspect Bob is correct.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I would agree with your perception as I am now in my first year of

chiropractic college and graduated from a Master's degree from one of the

better California programs. I think one of our problems has to do with

putting more info into these classes. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Brian Hardy <mischievous00

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:50:39 -0800 (PST)

>

>

>I cannot comment regarding other educational programs but I know from my

>own experience the acupuncture program that I graduated from as well as

>other DC's will tell you the acupuncture program was not that difficult to

>get thru compared to the chiropractic program.

>

>If I had studied the same amount in in my chiropractic education as I did

>in my acupuncture education I would have never made it past the 2nd term.

>

>From talking to most individuals, they don't have a clue to the amount of

>study that goes on to receive your DC degree.

>

>In chiro school we spend approx. 8 hours per day in class, another 3-5 hrs

>studying in the evening and catching up on what we didn't study on the

>weekends.

>

>Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of studying to do in the TCM program

>just not the same level of degree or difficulty.

>

>I believe that most DC's and MD's that start and don't finish the TCM

>program is because they think its easier than it is and don't want to spend

>that much time out of their office's...

>

>Just my perception

>

>Brian

>

>

>officeonmarcus wrote:

>

>Bob (Flaws), of course you're entitled to your opinion, but how can you

>tell

>that 51% of TCM students could not get admitted to a MA or MS program

> >>>>Julie, I have been teaching LAc, MDs, DOs and PA-Cs for many years. I

>can tell you there is no comparison between the amount of material LAcs and

>MDs, DOs, and PA-Cs can handle. Most LAcs i have taught throue out the

>years need to be spoon fed, you need to go very slow and they are unwilling

>to do much work when not in class. A few years ago i taught a class in

>orthopedics at ACTCM, i actually did not go through the materials very fast

>but 90% of the class got overwhelmed, could not follow the materials. I

>have no experience with other professional programs (ie not medical) so i

>cant compare MA students and LAcs but i suspect Bob is correct.

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The state of PA has this law introduced by republicans every session, as do

most states. As a result, it woudl be relatively easy to find the law and look

at the co-sponsors, who along with a tax reform/government reform group, si

pushing the bill. This is a head start. the difficulty is that it is very

difficult to reduce bureaucracy as state employees like their jobs, especially

when

it comes to lording over professionals. It is an uphill battle, but a noble

one.

David Molony

 

 

In a message dated 12/8/04 11:37:33 AM, pemachophel2001 writes:

 

 

>

>

> Chris,

>

> If it were ever possible, now is the time with a Republican majority

> in control of both houses of Congress as well as a Republican Prez and

> a soon-to-be staunchly conservative Supreme Court. As we all know, a

> majority of Americans make regular use of some kind of CAM, and, more

> importantly, where there's a will, there's a way. None of my

> generation ever thought we'd see the fall of the Berlin Wall or the

> collapse of the USSR. Yet, these both occurred relatively suddenly

> when the time was ripe.

>

> The biggest obstacle to this radical kind of sea change are those

> small-minded individuals who say it can't be done. As the old saw

> goes, " Whether you say you can or you can't, you're right. " The course

> of history is studded with examples of ideas which were considered

> fantasy that later turned out to be pivotal turning points in human

> culture and development. As another saying goes, " The wise man's

> wisdom is folly to the fool. "

>

> In any case, I have been making this suggestion (in print and in

> person) for 10 years or more. On this issue, the paternalistic Dems

> are actually our enemies. Strange, eh?

>

> If you want to push this forward, one possible way is contacting your

> state (not federal) Republican legislators as well as your local

> Libertarian Party. At the same time, try to create a coalition of all

> the state associations of CAM practitioners. The Medical Practices

> Acts are state laws. If even one could be repealed, this might create

> a domino effect. We'd have to analyze and pick the right state. Utah

> perhaps. It's staunchly Republican, staunchly individualistic, has

> lots of rich nutraceutical companies, and is small enough to be

> manageable politically. Other possibilities would be Idaho, Montana,

> and Wyoming. It certainly would get lots of media coverage and create

> a national debate. If you could manage this in one state, it would

> serve as an example to people in other states. That's typically the

> way this kind of legilation spreads nationally.

>

> Bob

>

 

 

 

 

 

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 sto

rage 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

Creation of a doctoral program for us is not taking on " their " title. We

have every right to create a program of study and an appropriate licensing

title with it. The world is changing and so is medicine. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " shannahickle " <shannahickle

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:26:51 -0000

>

>

>

>Hi Laura

>

>You get right to the point here. This is the most realistic opinion

>I've heard yet. Maybe we're naive as beginners but this really rings

>true for me as well. Thanks. Right on!

>

>Shanna

>

> , " heylaurag "

><heylaurag@h...> wrote:

> >

> > 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

Mike, I think that's a really good point, but I was just trying to

take *their* point of view. But, yes, considering you can become a

doctor of just about any philosophy, why not ours? My point is just

that the problem is that the very people who have power over us

already feel threatened by us, and I think *they* would prefer not to

have to accept us as doctors into their settings. I think they would

be much more likely to feel territorial when confronted with the idea

of a doctor joining them, than an acupuncturist. Its interesting, I

think we have a better chance of being accepted into hospitals and

mainstream clinics than chiropractors do. Why would that be? I think

its because they can handle the idea of another allied health

profession around them, but they sure as heck don't want another

doctor around them. So it seems like maybe we should play their game

until we have enough clout to do otherwise. But these are just

thoughts....I really don't have any idea what the best answer is. I

could argue either way, actually.

 

Hey Shanna, thanks for appreciating my thoughts! It is indeed hard to

know whether our view is slanted because we are beginners...or maybe

its more " fresh " ? :)

 

Laura

 

 

, " mike Bowser "

<naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> Creation of a doctoral program for us is not taking on " their "

title. We

> have every right to create a program of study and an appropriate

licensing

> title with it. The world is changing and so is medicine. Later

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> > " shannahickle " <shannahickle>

> >

> >

> >Re: doctoral folly continues

> >Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:26:51 -0000

> >

> >

> >

> >Hi Laura

> >

> >You get right to the point here. This is the most realistic opinion

> >I've heard yet. Maybe we're naive as beginners but this really rings

> >true for me as well. Thanks. Right on!

> >

> >Shanna

> >

> > , " heylaurag "

> ><heylaurag@h...> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

While I can understand what your reasoning is I disagree with your

perceptions of the MD. It depends upon what part of the country and how

open they are. We are seeing the true colors of both individuals and

organizations who will oppose the FSU public chiro college idea till they

die. This is bigotry, plain and simple. There have been both DC and L Ac

working in hospitals as well as outpatient clinics. Obvously numbers have

been small. I know that MD used to have RN do acupuncture in hospitals

which may be why they are more interested in us. The right to practice in a

hospital is up to the hospital itself and not the individual MD. Some

schools in CA have formed working relationships with hospitals to do their

master/doctoral internship. PCOM and Emperor's both have such arrangements.

Interns will be treating patients on facility. Professional respect can

and will come by pushing the limit, not by limiting ourselves. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " heylaurag " <heylaurag

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:59:08 -0000

>

>

>Mike, I think that's a really good point, but I was just trying to

>take *their* point of view. But, yes, considering you can become a

>doctor of just about any philosophy, why not ours? My point is just

>that the problem is that the very people who have power over us

>already feel threatened by us, and I think *they* would prefer not to

>have to accept us as doctors into their settings. I think they would

>be much more likely to feel territorial when confronted with the idea

>of a doctor joining them, than an acupuncturist. Its interesting, I

>think we have a better chance of being accepted into hospitals and

>mainstream clinics than chiropractors do. Why would that be? I think

>its because they can handle the idea of another allied health

>profession around them, but they sure as heck don't want another

>doctor around them. So it seems like maybe we should play their game

>until we have enough clout to do otherwise. But these are just

>thoughts....I really don't have any idea what the best answer is. I

>could argue either way, actually.

>

>Hey Shanna, thanks for appreciating my thoughts! It is indeed hard to

>know whether our view is slanted because we are beginners...or maybe

>its more " fresh " ? :)

>

>Laura

>

>

> , " mike Bowser "

><naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> > Creation of a doctoral program for us is not taking on " their "

>title. We

> > have every right to create a program of study and an appropriate

>licensing

> > title with it. The world is changing and so is medicine. Later

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> > > " shannahickle " <shannahickle>

> > >

> > >

> > >Re: doctoral folly continues

> > >Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:26:51 -0000

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Hi Laura

> > >

> > >You get right to the point here. This is the most realistic opinion

> > >I've heard yet. Maybe we're naive as beginners but this really rings

> > >true for me as well. Thanks. Right on!

> > >

> > >Shanna

> > >

> > > , " heylaurag "

> > ><heylaurag@h...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > 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

By this answer, I am lead to believe that all master's and doctorate level

programmes started at the level it is at today?

Do we wish to forever run before we can walk?

What I hear is that no one is learning anythng anyway so that what we truly

need is a better education, but that we don't need a doctoral level of

education or to expand it any more, but to merely make the education we have

better?

I believe that by developng a doctoral education level and then tuning it and

making it better, even without expanding the hours, we can have a doctoral

level education we can be proud of. I am not talking a post graduate doctoral

PhD program, which certainly should also be offered so our colleges can enhance

the quality of our teachers, but a clinical doctorate that will provide a good

foundation for a practicing doctor or Oriental Medicine.

Can we decide what that will look like today? No. Should that stop us from

moving ahead in developing one? No.

 

" 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 "

 

Are you sure that MD's title isn't bogus? They seem to think they can do

everything without knowing more than a cursory amount about how to do it. Do

they

have the level of education to meet that criteria? Let's develop the program

and make it right instead of trying to make it right before we know what it is.

I do, however, feel that we need to have a prerequisite of a specific level

of basic sciences prior to entry into a college. Sorry, a BA without any

sciences may not do, while a 2 year intense programme of basic sciences will. Do

I

have this? No. Do I think this is needed for someone who is 18 years old? Yes.

That is what we are looking at here. A basic entry level inot our educational

process. Not what we have today. What we will have in 10 years.

Hey. I may lose the argument and I'll live with it, but I thik it woud be

useful to get these basic sciences out of the hands ot the OM colleges and let

them focus on training on understanding basic clincal western sciences for the

credits we have allowed for western science in our programs.

I am also in favor of developing a residency program, once we have a

doctorate and the colleges develop or contract with hospitals to do so.

Unfortunately,

we have a chicken and egg problem here.

We can't get into hospitals unless we have Medicare coverage and Medicare

coverage will be so low there are few who want to spend the money necessary to

get it passed. I know the AAOM has been working on medicare passage for over 10

years now, and have over 60 congressional co-sponsors signed on, but that is

out of well over 400, not to mention the Senate. We have been focusing on

getting included in the Federal Employee Benefit Plan so that we can develop

data

to show Medicare we are cost effective, or even effective at all in their way

of looking at things, as the person in charge of Medicare providers and

coverage has told us is the best way to get included if we didn't have a few

million

to spend. Our legislative chair gave a report on ths subject recently.

So, as always all things seem to be interconnected. Politics, coverage,

education, practice. To pick out one segment of the equation and to make

decisions

or actions on that alone is much easier to think about than to try and grasp

all the things that have to be done to effect change in our system as it is

today. That is why there are organizations and why organizations have committees

of people who have to volunteer their time to move a naescent profession ahead

and why leadership matters. We have to move out of our Keystone cops process

(meaning not teamwork oriented) of getting things done if we want to work

federally. It can work on the state level with a few people treating the right

people effecting change, but federal change is monolithic and requires lengthy

committment and patience, or an extremely pissed off large section of the publ

ic.

Once again. These are not necessarily the views of the AAOM, but of my

experience over the past couple decades of involvement, and being mortal, I

could be

wrong.

DAvid Molony

In a message dated 12/9/04 11:02:12 AM, pemachophel2001 writes:

 

 

>

>

> " 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

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

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

BS is not needed for entry into DC/ND school. Three years of undergrad with

large amounts of western sciences is though. Schools provide for optional

BS during attendance. The advantage of this type of system is that funding

for Pell grants is there. Once a student has a BS they are no longer able

to get this money. The current structure of acu education is not inline

with this type of program. The undergrad reqs can be in anything and

science courses are not transferable as part of science reqs. This makes no

sense to me. Maybe it does to others though. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>acuman1

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:38:55 EST

>

>

>In a message dated 12/9/04 3:04:15 PM, naturaldoc1 writes:

>

>

> > 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. 

> >

>

>It was my impression that a BS was not needed to enter either college, but

>a

>specific level of basic science courses, say, 60 credits of hard sciences,

>as

>a foundation. A BS woudl certainly have that level of credit, but a focused

>2

>year program could too. It was my impressoin that even an MD colege would

>accept certain, less than BS level people who pass their entrance with a

>specific

>score or better, especially if they are connected.

>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

Its interesting, I

think we have a better chance of being accepted into hospitals and

mainstream clinics than chiropractors do. Why would that be?

>>>>>Mainstream med has been totally brainwashed against chiropractic,

acupuncture is seen as more scientific. We however are not held in high regard

 

 

 

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...