Guest guest Posted July 11, 2003 Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_907_bill_20030221_introdu\ ced. html If you go to the website at the link above, you will the find the original text of the bill SB 907 on the day it was introduced. If you search the text of the bill for the word acupuncture, it comes up only a few times and in each case it is on a list of existing medical boards. Nowhere in the bill does the scope of practice mention acupuncture. So why were we led to believe this was such a big deal. Why did CSOMA lobby to have acupuncture specifically excluded from the ND law. If it is not included, it is excluded by default. ND's never asked for it in the first place, yet CSOMA spent time and money to fight this battle. Very peculiar. I found this out when speaking with several outraged students today, both ND' s. Can someone enlighten me. Will the plot thicken. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2003 Report Share Posted July 11, 2003 One issue comes to mind - in Washington state, ND's have been trying for years to get acupuncture under their scope of practice, as I've heard they've been doing in other states as well. It would only be a matter of time until they would try in CA as well. By proactively getting the exclusion off the bat, they are probably saving a lot more lobbying effort further down the line, like we have to put up with here. So we end up spending time and money defending ourselves rather than spending that energy promoting our profession. Geoff > __________ > > Message: 4 > Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:47:59 -0700 > < > why the charade? > > http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_907_bil > l_20030221_introduced. > html > > If you go to the website at the link above, you will the find > the original > text of the bill SB 907 on the day it was introduced. If you > search the > text of the bill for the word acupuncture, it comes up only a > few times > and in each case it is on a list of existing medical boards. > Nowhere in > the bill does the scope of practice mention acupuncture. So > why were we > led to believe this was such a big deal. Why did CSOMA lobby to have > acupuncture specifically excluded from the ND law. If it is > not included, > it is excluded by default. ND's never asked for it in the > first place, > yet CSOMA spent time and money to fight this battle. Very > peculiar. I > found this out when speaking with several outraged students > today, both ND' > s. Can someone enlighten me. Will the plot thicken. > > > Chinese Herbs > > voice: > fax: > > " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre > minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 In a message dated 7/11/03 2:48:35 AM, writes: Nowhere in the bill does the scope of practice mention acupuncture. So why were we led to believe this was such a big deal. Why did CSOMA lobby to have acupuncture specifically excluded from the ND law. If it is not included, it is excluded by default. ND's never asked for it in the first place, yet CSOMA spent time and money to fight this battle. Very peculiar. I found this out when speaking with several outraged students today, both ND' s. Can someone enlighten me. Will the plot thicken. Actually, the reverse is true. If it is not specifically removed, it can be added by the board later in most states by rule if it is commonly used by the profession. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 , " Geoffrey Hudson " <list@a...> wrote: > One issue comes to mind - in Washington state, ND's have been trying for > years to get acupuncture under their scope of practice, as I've heard > they've been doing in other states as well. It would only be a matter > of time until they would try in CA as well. By proactively getting the > exclusion off the bat, they are probably saving a lot more lobbying > effort further down the line, like we have to put up with here. Perhaps. But if ND's wanted to do this in CA, they could just lobby to have the exclusion removed at some later date. The inclusion of the exclusion does not close the topic for further consideration. And if this was the goal, why were press releases misleading, suggesting acupuncture had been removed from the ND law by CSOMA's efforts when it was never included in the first place. Certainly this type of vague wording would arouse more ire than a clear statement of the facts..... and thus more calls to the assembly. But it does not confer any greater protection on us from competition by ND's than was written in the original law. Anything now in the law can be changed later. The revised ND bill passed out of committee 13-0, so it will likely be passed by the entire body and signed by the governor. This distorted legislative battle has achieved one thing -- a tremendous amount of animosity between California naturopaths and their logical allies, us. And when they are licensed, hopefully they will not pay us back by attacking our scope of practice, some of which cannot be justified by current training, such as making western idagnoses as some claim to be our right under the law. It is almost as if the CMA orchestrated the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2003 Report Share Posted July 12, 2003 , acuman1@a... wrote: > Actually, the reverse is true. If it is not specifically removed, it can be > added by the board later in most states by rule if it is commonly used by the > profession. > David Molony In theory perhaps, but this is not in reality. Is there actually a state where acupuncture has been added by rule to the practice of naturopathy. No state would give the sope of one profession to another just because they have regularly used it illegally without training. When rules are used to increase scope, it is for things the practitioners have actually trained for, not just things they happen to do. In fact, the CA Assn of Nd's (CANP) position has always been against the inclusion of acupuncture in their law. Many CA ND's are L.Ac. and have great respect for the training. They also know it is political suicide in CA to even consider it. There was never any interest in taking acupuncture as part of their scope and as I know many CA ND's, I can assure you all this empty battle has indeed created animosity that will take years to mend. that animosity between holistic healthcare professions is the real threat to our profession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 , " " <@i...> wrote: > , acuman1@a... wrote: > > > Actually, the reverse is true. If it is not specifically removed, it can be > > added by the board later in most states by rule if it is commonly used by the > > profession. > > David Molony > > In theory perhaps, but this is not in reality. Is there actually a state where > acupuncture has been added by rule to the practice of naturopathy. No state > would give the sope of one profession to another just because they have > regularly used it illegally without training. When rules are used to increase > scope, it is for things the practitioners have actually trained for, not just things > they happen to do. David, Geoff and all, According to our lobbyist " Scope creep " is a common nowadays. In Washington State the Denturists successfully lobbyied and finally got a law past through a citizen initiative where they were finally allowed the right to fit the dentures that they make. The Dentists were not happy. That is just one example. The Naturopaths in Washington wanted to get dermal stimulation added to their scope and the acupuncturists lobbyied with success against it. If another group of health care practitioners wants that privilege than they should have the education and training to use it. Many ND's have dual licences. Why should they have other ND's that have not had the education practice acupuncture? We do not do physical exams, blood and urine tests and they do not do " acupuncture " , fair enough as far as I am concerned. Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 Hi Jill, Well put. Reminds me of the law they had in Montana where MD's could practice acupuncture, but had to pass the NCCAOM exam first! Too bad it is no longer.. I don't see any problem with having to display a minimum competency to a third party examination. Geoff > __________ > > Message: 4 > Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:03:26 -0000 > " Jill A. Likkel MAc, LAc, DiplAc, Ch " > <jlikkel > Re: why the charade? > > , " " <@i...> > wrote: > > , acuman1@a... wrote: > > > > > Actually, the reverse is true. If it is not specifically removed, > it can be > > > added by the board later in most states by rule if it is commonly > used by the > > > profession. > > > David Molony > > > > In theory perhaps, but this is not in reality. Is there actually a > state where > > acupuncture has been added by rule to the practice of naturopathy. > No state > > would give the sope of one profession to another just because they > have > > regularly used it illegally without training. When rules are used > to increase > > scope, it is for things the practitioners have actually trained > for, not just things > > they happen to do. > > David, Geoff and all, > According to our lobbyist " Scope creep " is a common nowadays. In > Washington State the Denturists successfully lobbyied and finally got > a law past through a citizen initiative where they were finally > allowed the right to fit the dentures that they make. The Dentists > were not happy. That is just one example. > The Naturopaths in Washington wanted to get dermal stimulation added > to their scope and the acupuncturists lobbyied with success against > it. If another group of health care practitioners wants that > privilege than they should have the education and training to use it. > Many ND's have dual licences. Why should they have other ND's that > have not had the education practice acupuncture? We do not do > physical exams, blood and urine tests and they do not > do " acupuncture " , fair enough as far as I am concerned. > Jill 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.