Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Note: I have heard the standart of care vs. malpractice argument before. I really don't buy it. In my mind it is more of an excuse to stay with the status quo for other reasons. It is a well known defense gambit I wanted to do the right thing, but was prevented by someone else, etc.. A few other doctors use nutrients and herbs without being sued. At least by their patients, although they can wind up with a lot of legal difficulties from the establishment. I would think, that it would be an easy matter to get a release signed by the patient stating that the treatments would be outside " of the standards of care " as requested by the patient and administered by common agreement. Therefore I don't buy this argument as being one of the main reasons for the allopaths total lack of interest in natural healing. In fact with a non toxic, natural treatment, I think the likelyhood of a damaged or unhappy patient would be much less anyway, resulting in less malpractice suits. Most damaged patients do not sue, no matter what the propaganda machine says. That is another gambit. To blame and demonize the victum Just my thoughts. Frank kvan100951 Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:32:55 EST THE NEW PARADIGM IN HEALTH THE NEW PARADIGM IN HEALTH Marcia Smith, N.D., Ph.D. * Dr. Rudin is a graduate of Harvard Medical School, long-time Director of the Department of Molecular Biology at the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, and the author of The Omega 3 Phenomenon. Do you often wonder why your physician will not listen to what you have to say? It is partially because he is still deeply entrenched in the old paradigm of health and healing, and you have moved into the new. The day will eventually come when you will once again stand on common ground. But until then, to understand the gap between your world and his, so that you can better address those concerns, get this comparison of the two paradigms by Dr. Marcia Smith. It is an eye opener. ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE IN THE COMMUNITY Why aren't doctors as eager to learn about our break-through discoveries as we are? Why do they turn a deaf ear in many instances? It may surprise you to know that they have no choice. They are bound by what is called " the accepted standard of care in the community. " If they do not adhere to that standard of care, they are vulnerable to losing everything which they have worked for their entire lives. And they are unwilling to take that chance. I was talking with the wife of a doctor who teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine, who told me that her husband acknowledges the fact that the standard of care in the community is not always the best choice of treatment. But doctors are compelled to follow it. As a court reporter of 30 years, I worked on many medical malpractice cases. The first question asked during pretrial discovery or at the time of trial was, " Doctor, did you follow the accepted standard of care in the community when treating Mary Jones? " If the answer is no, ipso facto, they are guilty of malpractice, they are liable to be hit with serious monetary sanctions, and their right to continue practicing medicine is seriously jeopardized. WHAT IS THE “STANDARD OF CARE†AND WHO DEFINES IT? It is the recommendations found in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) and peer reviewed articles in cited journals, materials which they can find by going to Medline. The PDR is a book which is on the desk of every physician and which is updated annually. In it a doctor will find a section for the condition which he has diagnosed and the recommended drugs of choice, with their potential benefits and possible side effects. Most of the time the possible adverse side effects take several times more space than the potential benefits. The " standard of care " is the course of treatment which you can predict will be administered if you go from one doctor to another in your community because they are all using the same sets of recommendations. WHERE DOES THE MATERIAL COMEFROM IN THE PDR AND CITED JOURNALS? The PDR is published by the pharmaceutical industry. And most material in the cited journals is developed from studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry, as well. In other words, drug companies determine the vast weight of opinion held in the health care industry. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? This is the exciting part and should give you tremendous pride and confidence in the forward-thinking genius of this scientific team, headed by Dr. Bill McAnalley. If you wonder why they have focused on the disease conditions which they selected, they are conditions for which there is as yet no " standard of care. " We have numerous articles coming out in " cited " journals regarding these conditions. And it is expected that our products will eventually be declared the " standard of care " in those areas. When that occurs your doctor will be free to use our nutritional products in his treatment decisions. In fact, he will be derelict if he does not. And once that initial inroad into natural, non-toxic products has been made, many others will follow shortly thereafter. Folks, this is how paradigms are changed. Some courageous pioneers, who are scoffed at by their peers, forge forward against tremendous pressure. And once the light of day is shined upon new knowledge, darkness gradually recedes into the background. And we eventually get to the point that the new paradigm is accepted by the whole, and creative thought once again is on the same page, opening new vistas which in the old paradigm were totally unthinkable. Mannatech is forging new pathways, and according to both Dr. McAnalley, it will eventually become the " Standard Care " .  The following is a comparison of the old beliefs based on the current paradigm and new beliefs based on the emerging new paradigm by Marcia Smith, N.D., Ph.D. 1. CURRENT PARADIGM - It is necessary to work against nature in order to control and manipulate the body towards the appearance of wellness. The current belief is that the body has a very limited capacity to heal itself. If you look at lables of most medications, it says to mask, cover, the symptoms of..... EMERGING PARADIGM - " The body heals itself and nutrition provides the resources to accomplish that task. " Dr. Roger Williams - Nutrition Against Disease, 1971. The concept of " treating " a disease is replaced by a process of restoring balance to the body through natural means. 2. CURRENT PARADIGM - The body is a machine that can be broken down into parts and fixed, just as if it were a car. The body is merely physical, and only physical solutions will work. EMERGING PARADIGM - The body is a living, multidimensional organism, not a machine. The dynamics of the physical body are based on its blueprint (energy pattern) and not solely on its chemical and physiological reactions. Emotions and mental attitudes have a great deal to do with the experience of health. Sometimes a disease process can be part of a spiritual, transformative process, in which case a physical treatment method may be only partially successful. 3. CURRENT PARADIGM - Eliminating symptoms is the same as healing, and it is justifiable to use toxic substances to do so. EMERGING PARADIGM - Healing is a long process. To rebuild a body to the cellular level takes a while, and this process is different from person to person. This process may not always be comfortable since it requires elimination of toxic substances through the organs of detoxification. The inner wisdom of the body has its own priorities, and the process is not always predictable.  4. CURRENT PARADIGM - The goal of medical science is to find a " cure " for each separately-labeled disease by finding an exact cause for that disease; i.e., one cause/one disease. EMERGING PARADIGM - What are perceived as distinct diseases are different manifestations of common underlying imbalances - many of which can be traced to oxidative stress ( " rusting " ) at the cellular level and immune dysfunction. Donald O. Rudin, MD*, has named this phenomenon The Modernization Disease Syndrome. He includes in this syndrome heart disease, cancer, AIDS, diabetes, arthritis, colitis, mental disorders, auto immune conditions, etc. He sees that underlying this syndrome are imbalances in the regulatory mechanisms in the body resulting from " changes in lifestyle factors involving exercise, stress, smoking, drugs, pollutants, and especially a multiplicity of interacting dietary modifications which have not heretofore been evaluated for their collective effect. " He speaks of how both cancer and heart disease researchers see a dietary and lifestyle component to each of these diseases " without mentioning each other's findings, as though cancer and heart disease were unrelated illnesses instead of just different genetic manifestations of the same nutrition and lifestyle problem " - i.e., The Modernization Disease Syndrome. 5. CURRENT PARADIGM - Medical knowledge unfolds in a hierarchical fashion from research scientist to doctor to patient. The doctor is the unquestioned authority over the patient and is in control of the process. EMERGING PARADIGM - Determining appropriate nutritional support requires active participation between individual and health practitioner. Biochemical individuality is the key. It is essential that each individual listen to the " Healer " within. Therefore, it is impossible for a " doctor " to have the ultimate control in the healing process. In the emerging paradigm, the true definition of " doctor " as teacher is restored. 6. EMERGING PARADIGM - Health discoveries can occur outside of scientific channels. What works is of primary importance, as long as it creates no harm. There is no need to ban the practice of using what works until " hierarchical " scientific research has validated it. I hope you have noticed a very important thing in this - so important - that I will mention it again. Drug companies set the standard of care. Drug companies are of a multi-billion dollar industry and are not going to give up prolonging your death - without a fight! They have tried to make natural products illegal, and make claims that they are unsafe, unhealthy and costly. Which is what many of their products are. Listen to the commercials - They even give a quick glossed over side effects list. The other thing is, Insurance companies have taken over the “care†of patients. they decide from a far away corporate office how long Patient “A “ can stay in a hospital room. How much treatment they do need and when they need it. They also decide what medications are allowed. They too are behind this - prolong your death - attitude. My mother died of cancer. She was a heavy smoker for many years because of another big money corporation, and they made it illegal for Doctors to say, smoking kills. And even though she quit smoking 15 years before her death, lung cancer took hold. Not being told what was missing from our diets, there was no way to for her to win. But this makes me wonder, even though the tide has changed for tabacco producers, what other big money corporation is hiding Truth in death acts. With, big money corporations preventing Doctors from speaking, drug companies telling you what to take and insurance companies telling you how, when and where to take their drugs - it amazes me we “live†(survive) as long as we do. But we are seeing the results of this. Once rare diseases are on the rise. Thanks to durgs we have created super resistance bateria, viruses, and germs. Nothing has ever been produced to do the job of the human immune system. Learn how to increase your immune system. Great advances have been made at prolonging death. Now - it’s time to prolong life - Blessings Doug Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc. To , e-mail to: Gettingwell- Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.