Incorporation of homeopathy

May 31, 2000

I have previously remarked that there seem to be two schools of thought

here. For now, I will call one group the 'purists' and the other the

'eclectics'.

Naturally, being a practitioner primarily of Traditional East Asian

Medicine, my approach to contemplating and defining a patient's dis-ease is

from within this framework. However, being of open mind, I can't quite

accept that any system of medicine has a monopoly on the Truth. Being a

practitioner, my greatest concern is for the well-being of my patients and

if I can aid this process by utilizing other methods, I certainly do so.

I have treated many children for a variety of conditions. Often homeopathy

is a wonderful means of restoring homeostasis. It is painless, inexpensive,

convenient (with remarkable patient compliance) and effective.

There are many reasons for wanting to keep the education of practitioners of

Chinese medicine pure. We are not, however Chinese. Patients in China are

often treated daily over the course of weeks. How many practitioners

outside of China have the ability to see patients as frequently? I find

that costs, transportation and busy work schedules prohibit this. How many

practitioners are the sole providers of healthcare for their patients?

Doesn't it make sense to seek answers in as many arenas as possible?

I am not suggesting that homeopathy or other modalities be incorporated into

TCM. [i might refer readers to an interesting book by Manning and Vanrenen

entitled _Bioenergetic Medicines East and West: Acupuncture and Homeopathy,

in this regard.] I am stating that no single system of medicine has all the

answers. I find it beneficial to patients to have a broad a field of

understanding of as many systems as possible. For instance, I find

antibiotics to be quite useful in the treatment of cystitis and have no

reservations of referring patients to their medical doctors. On the other

hand, I find the most children with otitis media are unnecessarily given

antibiotics, which not only do not address the problem (as 80% of ear

infections are of a viral nature) but destroy the friendly flora in the

colon.

Just as many Western practitioners are seeking understanding of

non-conventional modalities, we too should be open to other ways. Such

knowledge benefits us all.

This is not to say the we should not further our attempt to both refine and

expand our knowledge of traditional Chinese medicine. I am grateful that

their are those in our profession who devote themselves solely to a more

complete understanding. I gain from their efforts. But personally, I

choose not to be a purist.

luke

May 31, 2000

I think purism versus eclecticism misses the point. My concern is

portrayal and training. No one has debated the value of homeopathy

(a

worthy subject, but not for this list, please!), but rather

questioned

whether it should be portrayed to our patients as part of chinese

medicine by those who have no Formal training. If someone feels like

saying " hi, TCM isn't working for you. I was never trained in

homeopathy, but I have used it successfully on cases like yours. do

you want to give it a try? " , more power to you. Anything less is

deceptive. Yes, it may work, but you know I think I could make a

pretty good judgement call on when to use antibiotics, too. Perhaps

even a better call than MD's who routinely prescribe such drugs 20X

as

often as their european counterparts for things like the common viral

colds. Of course, this is illegal, but what if its the right thing

to

do from my moral position and for my pateints' pocketbooks.

Maybe I could mailorder the drugs over the internet for my patient or

show them how to do it themselves. In modern china, antibiotics are

used by TCM doctors, so this seems more in line than homeopathy as an

adjunct. Yes, I am being purposely ludicrous to make a point. If

your

patient needs a specialty therapy outside your formal training, why

not

refer to an expert? Isn't that what is really in the patient's best

interes? I feel that hidden in the subtext of this discussion is our

profession's most serious problem. We are market driven to provide

one

stop shopping for our patients, even when this is not an effective

way

to practice medicine. If people's livelihoods did not depend on this

market orientation, I think we would see much less of this type of

debate.

I find it hard to believe that people might be arguing that after

having mastered acupuncture, tui na and herbs, someone who has

devoted

his whole professional life to homeopathy is not better qualified to

give treatment in this area than you. Of course, I suppose all this

is

moot if you are the only game in town. In a state like Oregon, there

are more professional options than you can shake a stick at. In

Indiana, for example, there are really no options at all. Should an

Indiana px branch out to fill this void, then? Economically, yes,

ethically, well you make that call.

, " Luke Klincewicz " <

l.klincewicz@w...> wrote:

But personally, I

> choose not to be a purist.

>

> luke

May 31, 2000

Hello

Thank you for your comments.

Let me note that I often refer patients to medical professionals who are

better trained in specific fields. None of us can boast of a 100% cure rate.

In regard to the patient case which I have presented at this site, I

immediately referred her to an MD, who is also trained in homeopathy and

anthroposophy. This patient is taking 5 medications and has not been

monitored for approx. 1 year. I am not proficient in the allopathic

pharmacopoeia, and am not licensed to prescribe. But I am proficient to

note that there may be a problem in this regard.

I am also not licensed to do phlebotomy. This not mean that I can't benefit

from the information gathered from lab results.

I was fortunate to work in a clinic that included MD's, DO's, DC's,

nutitionists, pscychologists, numerous massage therapists and several

practitioners of Oriental medicine. Case conferences were a thrill. This

environment led us all to expand our horizons and to at least learn the

language(s) of the various types of medicine. Such knowledge is invaluable.

I did not intend to suggest that one should practice what one does not have

training in.

Regarding the economics, I assume that most practitioners are ethical and

are primarily concerned with helping to restore their patients' health.

luke

<herb-t@s...>

Wed May 31, 2000 4:46pm

Re: Incorporation of homeopathy