the war against california

[Guest guest]

from the 1/03 Acu today

 

By Steve Given, LAc, MTOM

Secretary, Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

 

" The Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM)

interacts with the legislative branches of the federal and state

governments regarding the statutory issues impacting our medicine; with

the executive branch through regulatory boards; with local business

regulations; and with the judicial branch through our role in the courts.

We are concerned that a small group of practitioners is attempting to use

the legislative process to mandate its particular vision by passing state

laws. We strongly believe that this is not a constructive avenue, and is

creating tremendous tension and divisiveness in our field. "

 

 

I think this is quite misleading. While there was contentious debate over

the AB1943 before it passed, it did seem that the vast majority of rank

and file practitioners supported it. However no matter how one felt about

certain provison sof AB 1943, I do not believe any practitioner supports

the CCAOM position that we roll back CA standards to the national level of

about 2400 hours. I assume if they had their way, herbal certification

would be optional, too. They should stop bothering us and just raise

their national standards to a reasonable level. they claim since

acupuncture is safe and has had no major complaints from regulators,

training at the vocational level is more than adequate. I wonder about a

profession where the major licensing exam is regularly referred to as " a

joke " by students, most whom do not even bother to study for it. My hunch

would be that western medical licensing exams try and demonstrate that one

is a competent practitioner, not just unlikely to kill someone. what a

standard we have!!

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

At 10:20 AM -0800 1/20/03,

wrote:

I

think this is quite misleading. While there was contentious

debate over the AB1943 before it passed, it did seem that the vast

majority of rank and file practitioners supported it. However no

matter how one felt about certain provison sof AB 1943, I do not

believe any practitioner supports the CCAOM position that we roll back

CA standards to the national level of about 2400 hours. I assume

if they had their way, herbal certification would be optional, too.

They should stop bothering us and just raise their national standards

to a reasonable level. they claim since acupuncture is safe and

has had no major complaints from regulators, training at the

vocational level is more than adequate. I wonder about a

profession where the major licensing exam is regularly referred to as

" a joke " by students, most whom do not even bother to study

for it. My hunch would be that western medical licensing exams

try and demonstrate that one is a competent practitioner, not just

unlikely to kill someone. what a standard we

have!!

==

 

I agree with you. I know that one of the major loud voices at

CCAOM is Mark Seem of Tri-State in NY, who has been lobbying strongly

as you describe above.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

I think this is quite misleading. While there was contentious debate over the AB1943 before it passed, it did seem that the vast majority of rank and file practitioners supported it. However no matter how one felt about certain provison sof AB 1943, I do not believe any practitioner supports the CCAOM position that we roll back CA standards to the national level of about 2400 hours. I assume if they had their way, herbal certification would be optional, too. They should stop bothering us and just raise their national standards to a reasonable level. they claim since acupuncture is safe and has had no major complaints from regulators, training at the vocational level is more than adequate. I wonder about a profession where the major licensing exam is regularly referred to as "a joke" by students, most whom do not even bother to study for it. My hunch would be that western medical licensing exams try and demonstrate that one is a competent practitioner, not just unlikely to kill someone. what a standard we have!!

>>>They have done nothing but obstruct the development of TCM in the US. All they want is to cut up TCM and sell it to has many people as they can without any professional level training.

Alon

[Guest guest]

 

 

They should stop bothering us and just raise

> their national standards to a reasonable level. they claim since

> acupuncture is safe and has had no major complaints from

regulators,

> training at the vocational level is more than adequate. I wonder

about a

> profession where the major licensing exam is regularly referred to

as " a

> joke " by students, most whom do not even bother to study for it.

My hunch

> would be that western medical licensing exams try and demonstrate

that one

> is a competent practitioner, not just unlikely to kill someone.

what a

> standard we have!!

 

Since you have expressed your dissatisfaction

with arguments presented in favor of adoption

of higher standards related to the acquisition

of basic knowledge of the meaning of Chinese

medical language and literature, I submit for

your (and others') consideration that there is

a direct correlation between educational standards

and professional standards.

 

How could students consider the major licensing

exam anything but a joke when their education

has typically not included any but the most

cursory exploration of the meanings of the

basic terms?

 

How can we seriously talk about addressing

such problems if we do not establish a foundation

on which the entire profession can stably

stand?

 

Standards have to be based on something.

And in a subject such as Chinese medicine

it seems to me that the most reliable

basis for standards is the exact same

material that has served as the basis of

the subject for its entire history.

 

It is precisely for the purpose of raising

the standards in the profession, i.e., in

the clinical practice of the subject, that

I believe we must bring about a reexamination

of the most fundamental foundations of the

educational infrastructure.

 

This begins with the inclusion of the

nomenclature and the literature based

on that terminology.

 

What, exactly is it about this that

seems illogical to you?

 

I am talking to you, Todd.

 

I'm not expressing my enthusiasm for

the subject.

 

I'm asking you a question.

 

And, of course, since I'm asking you in

a public forum, I am inviting answers from

anyone who cares enough to respond.

 

What is it about the contention that

it's a good idea to know the meaning

of the words we use that you or anyone

feels is illogical?

 

And...

 

Does it not seem inevitable that a profession

based on educational standards that ignore

the basic language and literature of the

subject being taught is more or less doomed

to this kind of complicated suffering from

the lack of rigorous professional standards?

 

Instruction, examination, certification,

and professional standards all form a kind

of organic system. If the root is in disorder,

the branches will not flourish.

 

Ken