Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 I couldn't agree more. Why can't this profession define itself in any independent manner, without the " me-too-ism " that threatens to confine us to obscurity? The actual existence of this field in the West was due to the innovative and idealistic if somewhat naive vision of a few people from the 60's generation. While I've been a supporter of doctorate programs until now, (I am not so sure at this point where I stand), this profession needs some of that vision now, to define ourselves for the future. On Dec 6, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: > > For those doctor wannabe's, go to med school. > > We are not going to solve any of our problems by aping the title of > doctor, either with volutnary post-entry level eduction or entry-level > education going to a mandatory doctoral degree. If we continue to take > the same kind of students and teach them by the same kinds of teachers > in the same kinds of schools run by the same kinds of people, we will > get the same kinds of graduates. If those same old-same old graduates > call themselves doctors, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot for > sure. > > I still say we should simply adopt our own, unique title. Even if it > is a foreign word, like yi-sheng or yi-shi, with a little consistent > P.R. effort we can get the public to adopt it within a year or so, no > problem. Look how Madonna has made the word " kabbala " recognizable to > everyone in a period of 12 months or less. Most Americans are > comfortable with foreign title words like sensei, sifu, mullah, > ayatollah, mujaheddin, rabbi, rebbe, lama, rinpoche, yogi, etc. Who > knew what a fatwa was three or four years ago? Or an RPG or IED? Where > did the words bagel, bialy, pizza, pannini, expresso, latte, > bruschetta, salsa, fajitas, and tortilla come from? Not Anglo-Saxon; > that's for sure. Americans adopted the title " barista " without any > hesitation, and we all now know what a grande is. So why not Flaws > Yi-sheng, Luger Yi-sheng, and Marcus Yi-sheng? All it would take is a > will and some consistency of presentation. > > Are we so lacking in vision and the ability to think outside the box? > The fact that we cannot come up with a more creative solution to the > admitted issue of a workable title for members of our profession is > itself testimony to our lack of smarts as a profession. But then > Americans like our leaders to be average Joes, and average means just > that: ho-hum, medium, ma-ma hu-hu, not exceptional, not superior, not > great. Tant pis pour nous. > > Bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 but now that thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of any profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. >>>Not really since many students do not have undergraduate degree. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people will say that their state will NEVER allow it, >>>>Every state would have to allow it if it is regionally accredited. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Hi Zev, Definition is good and that is what our profession is moving towards. Failure to move forward could create a split in the profession between the east and west. In all of our discussions on this topic I have yet to hear any criticism of the many Asian practitioners who might use the title doctor yet may not have the credentials nor education (illegal in CA). Nor has there been any condemnation of the state licensing titles conferring such. We have OMD, D Ac and AP. While typically the western usage of the term can focus on either an educational degree or a general term for a physician. Doctor does not = MD in all cases. Doctor implies the highest level of training in a profession yet we are not. So if we are not then who is? What we need to all understand is that the educational and economic times are changing. I think we all want to see a future and hopefully more practitioners than there are now. If this is true than we need to be able to give them something other than just an TCM/OM education. Failure rates are high for graduates. There needs to be clinical ops as well as research, professional protections such as title and scope of practice, and greater ability to work with and understand western medicine (TCM contains a lot of western medicine). Lets not forget that practitioner's trained in SE Asia come over here with a much greater knowledge of the body and illness. We do not want to insult them nor do we want to alienate them. If we do nothing than I would predict that these practitioners will continue to get there MD here as well and support the more aggressive allopathic community in assimilating us. We are now starting to see classes and programs in major medical universities. It is only a matter of time before they ecclipse us. No small school today can compete with a Harvard, Stanford, etc when it comes to available resources. So I hope you all can see how important the need to move forward is and why we all need to dialogue on how to do it. I would love to see us just change the designation and keep the same hours as they are adequate but that probably won't fly. Thanks for the dialogue. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: Re: doctoral folly continues >Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:41:52 -0800 > >I couldn't agree more. Why can't this profession define itself in any >independent manner, without the " me-too-ism " that threatens to confine >us to obscurity? The actual existence of this field in the West was >due to the innovative and idealistic if somewhat naive vision of a few >people from the 60's generation. While I've been a supporter of >doctorate programs until now, (I am not so sure at this point where I >stand), this profession needs some of that vision now, to define >ourselves for the future. > > > > >On Dec 6, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: > > > > > For those doctor wannabe's, go to med school. > > > > We are not going to solve any of our problems by aping the title of > > doctor, either with volutnary post-entry level eduction or entry-level > > education going to a mandatory doctoral degree. If we continue to take > > the same kind of students and teach them by the same kinds of teachers > > in the same kinds of schools run by the same kinds of people, we will > > get the same kinds of graduates. If those same old-same old graduates > > call themselves doctors, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot for > > sure. > > > > I still say we should simply adopt our own, unique title. Even if it > > is a foreign word, like yi-sheng or yi-shi, with a little consistent > > P.R. effort we can get the public to adopt it within a year or so, no > > problem. Look how Madonna has made the word " kabbala " recognizable to > > everyone in a period of 12 months or less. Most Americans are > > comfortable with foreign title words like sensei, sifu, mullah, > > ayatollah, mujaheddin, rabbi, rebbe, lama, rinpoche, yogi, etc. Who > > knew what a fatwa was three or four years ago? Or an RPG or IED? Where > > did the words bagel, bialy, pizza, pannini, expresso, latte, > > bruschetta, salsa, fajitas, and tortilla come from? Not Anglo-Saxon; > > that's for sure. Americans adopted the title " barista " without any > > hesitation, and we all now know what a grande is. So why not Flaws > > Yi-sheng, Luger Yi-sheng, and Marcus Yi-sheng? All it would take is a > > will and some consistency of presentation. > > > > Are we so lacking in vision and the ability to think outside the box? > > The fact that we cannot come up with a more creative solution to the > > admitted issue of a workable title for members of our profession is > > itself testimony to our lack of smarts as a profession. But then > > Americans like our leaders to be average Joes, and average means just > > that: ho-hum, medium, ma-ma hu-hu, not exceptional, not superior, not > > great. Tant pis pour nous. > > > > Bob > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 It would be far easier to get a license changed to doctor or physician if we actually had such programs as first entry. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac >acuman1 > > >Re: Re: doctoral folly continues >Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:46:32 EST > > >In a message dated 12/7/04 11:45:47 AM, naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > Bob, > > The same logic would then hold true that if you want the title Yi sheng >then > > one should move to China. Those of us in the states, may want to be > > respectfully called " doctor " as it is a common title for numerous >healthcare > > providers who received the appropriate level of training. Of course you >can > > always get a license in a state that provides this title such as Rhode > > Island (D Ac) or New Mexico (OMD). I wonder how the public would see >this. > > Is this a better solution? I tend to like the Florida AP designation. >What > > do you think? Later. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > >Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a >degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with >licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people >will say >that their state will NEVER allow it, while it is all about politics and in >5 >years those people are gone or just nay sayers who are trying to buck a >trend or >just be ornery. A title is merely a playing field leveler for a profession >that now has an entry level of that title. Some people, usually those who >have a >personal interest that involves either pride or money, say " NEVER " , and >that >is ok. >In Florida, you can be titled a physician, but not a doctor, because of >turf >problems that may someday change. In Pennsylvania, we would find it >difficult > to get the title physician, but doctor is possible. The advantage is a >doctor degree designation is that it is available in every state, and >generally >recognized by other states. >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. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Amen! Mike W. Bowser, L Ac >acuman1 > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:46:28 EST > > >In a message dated 12/7/04 11:45:22 AM, naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > Our profession has been unstable for a long time. > > It is now manifesting this as more outside pressure is being put upon >us, by > > various governmental influences. We have no national standard, please >do > > not say NCCAOM is a standard, I mean at the legislative level. Second, >we > > missed the boat years ago by not making first primary professional >doctorate > > the standard. Our predecessors, who did not like politics, chose for us >a > > lower road with legislation. As a result, look what we have today, a >mess. > > The current level of training is adequate for our profession to be a >doctor. > > > >Every other profession started as a doctorate and then increased its >educational level. We did it backward, perhaps because we wanted to be >barefoot >doctors, saving the public with a cursory education in the beginning, but >now that >thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of >any >profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. It was a big topic of >discussion, and the wrong people won. Oops! >DAVE 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. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 This would definitely change the perspective of politicians and the public. It would not be so easy to deny us if this were to happen. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " alon marcus " <alonmarcus > > >Re: Re: doctoral folly continues >Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:03:07 -0800 > >Every state is different as far as titling goes. This is a title and not a >degree we are talking about with regards to a state title that comes with >licensure. Some states will provide a title, and some state board people >will say >that their state will NEVER allow it, > >>>>Every state would have to allow it if it is regionally accredited. >Alon > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 By the time you add the undergrad science courses to the two years of undergrad it looks pretty ridiculous. Why not just make it a Bachelor's degree in OM with optional master's and doctorates? This would remove most of the roadblocks known as western science courses. This is inline with the recent LHC report anyway. This would also eliminate us from compensation by insurance carriers but then we do not want that anyway do we? Basically, reimbursement is tied to western medicine coursework and also to scope of practice. I am currently in a blue state in the upper midwest where two schools of TCM have little coursework in western sciences and L Ac's have no insurance parity. That means that we may or may not get paid by the carrier while DC and MD who perform acupuncture get paid. Hmmh, see my point? No classes, no scope. No scope, no payment. Simple as that. By the way, people go wherever their HMO sends them here. > " alon marcus " <alonmarcus > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:01:15 -0800 > > but now that >thinking has screwed us into having the longest Master's level programs of >any >profession, equivalent to most doctoral programs. > >>>Not really since many students do not have undergraduate degree. >Alon > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 " 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Hi Bob, et.al., This " masters " idea in the US education of TCM has always confused me, and it only gets worse when something is called a " doctorate " level education which has no real basis in reality in academic circles. Here, in Australia (as it is in China), we have a 4 or 5 year Bachelor for TCM. 4 years for either acupuncture (with basic herbal education ie. patent use) or 5 years for both chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture. While this structure is slightly different to that of china; it is at least resembles professional TCM education. Australian Universities have been consulting and working closely with SATCM in China and our programs have the recognition of the SATCM to a large degree (no red stamp however). What we lack here is true Masters level education in TCM as well, this is likely to change soon however as we get further along the road. We do have " masters programs " for MD's etc that train them in TCM in 2 years and this concerns me as calling such degrees " masters " is a lie in my view; it is in reality a study of an entirely new subject for 2 years.......not a FURTHER education in one area which would more suitably entail the title " masters in TCM " . My impression of the US system of education in TCM is that it is generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications. If a proper 5 year B.Sc in enough for the Chinese for basic level, with masters and PHD being serious additional study to this basis........why is it not enough in the West? If a US doctoral degree does not go any deeper than a normal B.Sc in China or Australia..........where is the opportunity for REAL post-graduate education in the future? Will there be a Masters Masters or a Doctorate Masters and then a Doctorate Doctorate (tongue in cheek)? Confused, Steve On 10/12/2004, at 2:51 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: > > > " 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 > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, > including board approved continuing education classes, an annual > conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > 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 If you want the title doctor and want it to actually garner respect, there MUST be a residency requirement. with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone really think the public respects their titles. How many patients refer to their naturopaths and chiroprators as " my doctor " . Just as many as who will ever refer to us that way regardless of the title. Almost none. Have you ever been to a party of mainstream folks (even left-wingers) and been asked what you do and reply that you practice medicine. Then, after being queried further and it is discovered that you practice ORIENTAL medicine, most of the guests clearly feel they have been duped (despite the fact that I can talk WM with the best of them). awarding such a bogus title will open deepen the disprespect felt for our profession by other healthcare professionals who have truly earned such a title. The little hoover report strongly favors integration and strongly opposes parity. We have a great opportunity to fully integrate with the healthcare system (for those who like to play mainstream ball). We will likely blow this opportunity if we keep pushing the idea of OM as complete medical alternative. Alternative medicine is dead. We should work towards a future of complementary and integrative medicine. A title battle only insures our continual marginalization. Again, consider NDs and DCs. Are they being invited into HMOs? No. will they ever? No. Why? Because they have argued for so long that they are total separate healthcare systems that no one is willing to work with them despite any more recent conciliatory gestures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote <<< Doctor implies the highest level of training in a profession yet we are not. >>> not true as for those in the American nursing community a nurse may obtain the highest level of proficiency - a doctoral or PHD YET not allowed to be called or referred to as " doctor " . We need the vision that Z'ev referred to earlier. And we do need this discussion as it defines who/what we do/are. Just as this list is for the discussion of complexities involving Chinese herbs (not for needles, lasers, tui-na, magnets, etc) and for standards that we can strive for as well as be held to. personally, I believe I am competent (must be cause california says so) but believe that more training and even more training will improve my skills. Yet I remain befuddled by the lack of direction and standards offered by my profession. It all seems to be Madison-Avenue Hype. I do agree with the last part of Mike's statement that " yet we are not there " Again what makes this list valuable to me has been the discussion of the complex herbal cases and use of herbs. I am guided by these open discussions. Titles are for ego's, yes, but they help knowing from whence the discussion springs forth. It may just be an applied placebo [30% patients will get better just by wearing a white coat] but a title that someone believes in, aspires to, and is held accountable to, produces better results. When I agonized over the California State Boards and their relationship (value) to actual clinical practice, Miriam Lee told me " get your license first, you can not do anything without first getting your license, then you can learn " Students are like clay that are shaped into an image by the profession. The public hold an image of who their physician is. Images (titles) are important You can not have healing without an image. Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I wholeheartedly agree with you and hope that others can see this as well. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus > > >Re: Re: doctoral folly continues >Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:40:08 -0800 > >We are now starting to see classes and programs in major >medical universities. It is only a matter of time before they ecclipse us. > >>>And even if they will only get a fraction of what TCM schools teach, in >the US they will be viewed as the authorities in TCM because of their >standing in the community. If we do not get our Dr programs regionally >accredited we will loose any authority in CM as well as many of the >legislative gains we have enjoyed. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 By this do you mean actually doing rounds in a hospital and in their surgical ward? When you speak of the title doctor do you consider a ND or DC with equivalent western science hours to also be respective and deserving of said title? If not, why not? Lastly, how do you feel about our Chinese counterparts usage of title doctor? Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:02:05 -0000 > > >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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Herein lies part of the problem. What should our programs impart in knowledge both from eastern and western medicine? I happen to agree that we need to reconsider what we offer. This need has been more pressing since the LHC report was published. 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. Most programs seem to be located in close proximity to larger colleges and could create teaching agreements with them or have students take their sciences there. We need more serious debate on both outlining the problems as well as solutions. I think we all need to be active and have our voices heard not just the schools or the associations. The more minds that work on this the better. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:51:29 -0000 > > > " 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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Regardless of what one may think of the current administration, I agree with Bob's analysis re medical monopoly. One of the few Congressmen I respect is a libertarian Republican from Texas, Ron Paul, who I believe would be very receptive to removing the medical monopoly. He has been a lone voice in Congress, but many pay attention to him. There is a large libertarian wing in the Republican party (as well as less savory elements). Following is a sampling from Ron Paul's voluminous writings. If you read a few of the articles, you will quickly realize that he has put a lot of effort into explaining why government involvement in health care has been a disaster for everyone except the drug companies. A lot of MDs (Paul is a former Ob/Gyn) are getting fed up with the system also, and are retiring early in disgust. So there is a lot of potential support for the Health Freedom agenda, even among many doctors. Removing the medical monopoly is not simply a pipe dream - it is already in process with many backers at all levels. ---------------------- http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml A listing of links to articles by Ron Paul " Texas Straight Talk " See especially: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst011998.htm Jan 19, 1998: Government prescription for health is bad medicine other health-related articles: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst050304.htm May 3, 2004: Free Market Medicine http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst092004.htm Sep 20, 2004: Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm May 17, 2004: The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst100603.htm OCt 6, 2003: Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst033103.htm The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst120902.htm Dec 9, 2002: Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst121498.htm December 14, 1998: Medical costs can be cut with freedom http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst080904.htm Aug 9, 2004: Police State USA Related articles: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40365 Forced mental screening hits roadblock in House Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children Posted: September 9, 2004 http://www.garynull.com/issues/codex/aboutcodex.htm Health Freedom is Under Attack re: Codex Alimentarius, and Ron Paul's position on this issue: " If the Federal Statute in question (19 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1) and also (a)(2) in FACT protected our laws from harmonization to international standards which are usurping our sovereignty, it would not have been necessary for Congressman Ron Paul to introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act HR1146. " (ASRA " ) " Paul felt compelled to introduce ASRA because it is apparent to him, and to Jeanne Grimmett of the Congressional Research Service, that our domestic laws are not in fact protected by the aforementioned Federal Statute, due to the threat of trade sanctions being imposed by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body whenever we try refusing to harmonize our laws to an international standard. There are many examples in which Congress has in fact caved to this threat of trade sanctions. They are shown at www.iahf.com " US Laws Not Safe " section. " Also, this is a good time to give support to the National Health Freedom Coalition (NHFC). While various groups have been focused on grabbing larger pieces of the health care pie for their own mini-monopolies, these folks have been successful in helping to pass Health Freedom Acts in California, Rhode Island, and Minnesota (home of Jessie Ventura, a libertarian governor) - many more states are considering such. Health Freedom Acts are a good first step in dissolving the medical monopoly - and the NHFC folks have been shrewd enough to give doctors something too - they support not only health freedom for unlicensed practitioners and their clients, they support the rights of MDs to recommend natural remedies without being harassed by their own medical boards. I know one of the board members of the National Health Freedom Coalition, and I have a lot of respect for the integrity of this organization: http://www.nationalhealthfreedom.org/nhfc/home.htm If you want to do something to help out, ask them to put you in contact with others in your state to coordinate action groups. I'm sure they would also appreciate it if you became a dues-paying member. " Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. " --Dr Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:18:21 EST > Musiclear >Re: doctoral folly continues > >In a message dated 12/7/2004 2:02:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, >pemachophel2001 writes: >If you really want to fight this, then attack the root of the problem. >That root is the Medical Practices Act that gave MDs a monopoly. This >is unfair restraint of trade. The conservative Republicans who are >currently in power are/should be/would be sympathetic to this >argument. I have talked to Republican Senators who agree that the >granting of this monopoly was a mistake and should never have >occurred. This is essentially a freedom of choice and free market >issue. It is the positive side to the current political situation. >Repeal this monopoly (or at least make people aware of what it >actually is) and you've struck to the root of the situation. Otherwise >you're just clipping at the branches in a rigged system (as in rigged >against us). > >Bob > > > This is soooooo true Bob. What a simple and profound awareness. > > What is the possibility of repealing the monopoly? > > What a great option. > > Chris ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Actually your argument about the BS degree makes a lot of sense. I mentioned this on a previous response because people tend to want to argue about not having to take western sciences as a part of an advanced clinical degree. For these people, I think it is time to become aware that we practice a form of medicine. Having this western knowlege will open up more doors for us as a profession. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac >Steven Slater <laozhongyi > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:27:28 +1100 > >Hi Bob, et.al., > >This " masters " idea in the US education of TCM has always confused me, >and it only gets worse when something is called a " doctorate " level >education which has no real basis in reality in academic circles. > >Here, in Australia (as it is in China), we have a 4 or 5 year Bachelor >for TCM. 4 years for either acupuncture (with basic herbal education >ie. patent use) or 5 years for both chinese herbal medicine and >acupuncture. While this structure is slightly different to that of >china; it is at least resembles professional TCM education. Australian >Universities have been consulting and working closely with SATCM in >China and our programs have the recognition of the SATCM to a large >degree (no red stamp however). > >What we lack here is true Masters level education in TCM as well, this >is likely to change soon however as we get further along the road. We >do have " masters programs " for MD's etc that train them in TCM in 2 >years and this concerns me as calling such degrees " masters " is a lie >in my view; it is in reality a study of an entirely new subject for 2 >years.......not a FURTHER education in one area which would more >suitably entail the title " masters in TCM " . > >My impression of the US system of education in TCM is that it is >generally blowing smoke in terms of REAL qualifications. If a proper 5 >year B.Sc in enough for the Chinese for basic level, with masters and >PHD being serious additional study to this basis........why is it not >enough in the West? If a US doctoral degree does not go any deeper than >a normal B.Sc in China or Australia..........where is the opportunity >for REAL post-graduate education in the future? > >Will there be a Masters Masters or a Doctorate Masters and then a >Doctorate Doctorate (tongue in cheek)? > >Confused, > >Steve > > >On 10/12/2004, at 2:51 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: > > > > > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, > > including board approved continuing education classes, an annual > > conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 In a message dated 12/9/2004 4:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, naturaldoc1 writes: There is more respect for these other groups than for us. If there was not then they would not have accomplished so much with legislation. You make so many assumptions about " the way it is " . They have accomplished so much in legislation because they have a medical monopoly and huge bucks which they throw at the legislators. The way to a healthier world and prosperity of us, is going to be breaking the monopoly not in gong to school longer and having a title. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What planet are you on? First, the DC's in particular are a part of many HMO's while we are not, yet. Second, I have heard many a patient reference their DC as " doctor " . Your usage of the terminology reminds me of what alternative medicine was like 20 years ago. Doctor can be a general term for anyone in healthcare or to an educational degree or to an MD. The last usage seems to be slipping at least from sources that I hear. People tend to use MD and many do not like them. There is more respect for these other groups than for us. If there was not then they would not have accomplished so much with legislation. Residency is not the answer. You might try better educational standards. Right now we have programs that grant degrees, diplomas and some have certification. This has got to change. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " < > > >Re: doctoral folly continues >Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:24:30 -0000 > > > , " Bob Flaws " ><pemachophel2001> >wrote: > > > > 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 > >If you want the title doctor and want it to actually garner respect, there >MUST be a >residency requirement. with all due respect to NDs and DCs, does anyone >really think the >public respects their titles. How many patients refer to their naturopaths >and chiroprators >as " my doctor " . Just as many as who will ever refer to us that way >regardless of the title. >Almost none. Have you ever been to a party of mainstream folks (even >left-wingers) and >been asked what you do and reply that you practice medicine. Then, after >being queried >further and it is discovered that you practice ORIENTAL medicine, most of >the guests >clearly feel they have been duped (despite the fact that I can talk WM with >the best of >them). awarding such a bogus title will open deepen the disprespect felt >for our >profession by other healthcare professionals who have truly earned such a >title. The little >hoover report strongly favors integration and strongly opposes parity. We >have a great >opportunity to fully integrate with the healthcare system (for those who >like to play >mainstream ball). We will likely blow this opportunity if we keep pushing >the idea of OM >as complete medical alternative. Alternative medicine is dead. We should >work towards a >future of complementary and integrative medicine. A title battle only >insures our continual >marginalization. Again, consider NDs and DCs. Are they being invited into >HMOs? No. >will they ever? No. Why? Because they have argued for so long that they >are total >separate healthcare systems that no one is willing to work with them >despite any more >recent conciliatory gestures. > >Todd > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 In a message dated 12/9/2004 4:30:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, pemachophel2001 writes: I agree with Todd that DCs' and NDs' adoption and insistence on the use of the title doctor is not taken seriously by most people. They are not selected and trained with the rigor of MDs, and I think most people understand that. Do you really want to " corrupt " good people with the level of training given to MD's? Take a look a the statistics. They kill a lot of people with harmful, unnecessary drug and medical intervention. It is their way and if students are fed their philosophies, we are going to lose open minds willing to look past drugs and surgery. One of the positive aspects of our profession in the past has been that we were taught Chinese medicine as a system. We can correct imbalances and cure disease. Do MD's know how to cure disease???? They have to go outside their training to understand how to effectively deal with most of the common health challenges in our culture. And when they do, they have often been ridiculed and dragged into court. I personally don't want open minded " healers " being fed bogus information about health care. We are a separate system. We should know physiology and anatomy, and possible drug interactions. Working with MDs as interns won't help us be better Acupuncturists. It will more likely confuse good students into wondering why inserting needles would do anything at all. Taking down the monopoly is the best option I have heard in a long time. If we join forces with the corrupt medical community, the desire for free thinking open minded healers to join in our profession will diminish tremendously. If it was going to cost 75k and 6 years of longer to become an Acupuncturist there is no way in ,,,,,,,heck,,,, I would have signed on. Nor would the majority of my class. Nor would it make me better at what I do. Classical western medical training is by majority,,,, against life. We are for life. Huge difference. Making the entry point into this profession such a daunting obstacle is foolish and will hurt us. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 " By this do you mean actually doing rounds in a hospital and in their surgical ward? " Yes, although I'm not sure about the surgical ward. But definitely doing an internship and residency and doing rounds in all the other departments. " When you speak of the title doctor do you consider a ND or DC with equivalent western science hours to also be respective and deserving of said title? If not, why not? " I agree with Todd that DCs' and NDs' adoption and insistence on the use of the title doctor is not taken seriously by most people. They are not selected and trained with the rigor of MDs, and I think most people understand that. " Lastly, how do you feel about our Chinese counterparts usage of title doctor? " It depends on what their actual degree was from China: MD, BS, MS, or Ph.D. If they have an MD from China, I don't mind them using the title MD (China) even though they are not licensed as a medical doctor in the U.S. If they hold a Ph.D., I also don't mind them calling themselves doctors as long as Ph.D. is appended after that title. That being said, I did not propose the title " yi-sheng " because it functionally means doctor. Literally, it means something more like " [giver of] life [through] medicine. " And yi-shi means " master of medicine, " even though functionally most Chinese gloss that as doctor. I was looking for a title that can be applied to all professional practitioners of Chinese medicine no matter what our actual degree. If someone asked me what yi-sheng meant, I would say giver of life through the practice of medicine. Then I would say this is a traditional Chinese title for primary care practitioners. I would not translate it as doctor. As mentioned before, doctor in the U.S. is a legally protected trademark. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Roger, Excellent. So how would you advise those of us that favor of this approach to support it and get involved? I'm all ears. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 " I have heard many a patient reference their DC as 'doctor'. " Granted, those that go to them. But many more, who do not use them, refer to DCs as quacks. These same nonbelievers may even politely use the term doctor to these DCs' faces. Yet, if you ask them their real feelings about chiropractic, they will tell you they don't think of DCs are " real " doctors. " There is more respect for these other groups than for us. If there was not then they would not have accomplished so much with legislation. " Again, false logic. DCs have accomplished so much with legislation because of 1) their numbers, 2) their organization, and, 3) most importantly, their money. Case in point: here in Colorado, the CAA has a full-time office with paid full-time administrator plus three lobbyists. The AAC (Acupuncture Assoc. of Colorado) does not have an office, does not have a full-time administrator, and has one lobbyist. If you've had any legislative experience, you know that numbers, organization, and money equal favorable legislation, not " respect. " As an extension of this, the NDs have never been able to pass liocensing legislation in Colorado because there are so few of them here, much, much fewer than acupuncturists. That's why we have better legislatory success than them. Not because of how people view or respect them vis a vis us. In fact, I believe our profession (or at least MDs' and other professional heathcare providers' idea about our profession) has more respect than that of DCs and NDs. People generally know that Chinese medicine is an ancient, mature, time-tested, widely used, professional system of medicine. They know that China makes up 1/4 of the world's population. In general, I think people are predisposed to grant us a favorable impression which is then ours to blow. And blow it we often do when people then try Chinese medicine and are disappointed by failure by insufficiently trained, insufficiently professional graduates. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Ed, I am not in disagreement with you. Maybe I should have clarified my point about doctorates here as to primarycare practitioners. Regardless, it is generally considered by the educational community that a doctorate degree is the highest offerred in any profession. Of course in some fields there is optional post-doctorate training. You present another side of things that is also important. I think that many practitioners on this site are confused about the different ways to look at these issues. Getting your license first was good advice from Ms. Lee. But before you get your license you must get your degree. There are many things that our profession needs to address. As for the title, it is not ego if it is a requirement to practice a given profession. I am not professing this simply to say I want to be a doctor. I do happen to believe that some of the Master degree programs have enough hours and provide an adequate experience to use that title. We missed that boat. In todays world, we must now plan to create a more integrated program that includes a significant amount of western sciences. In the end, this helps us with working with the allopathic community, more treatment options/understanding and also medical employment ops. I do not know of many non-RN L Ac who have been given this chance. Future students want to know on other message boards what employment ops are out there. See the dilemma? Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Ed Kasper LAc " <eddy > > > RE: doctoral folly continues >Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:34:59 -0800 > > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote ><<< Doctor implies the highest level of training in a profession yet we are >not. >>> > >not true as for those in the American nursing community a nurse may obtain >the highest level of proficiency - a doctoral or PHD YET not allowed to be >called or referred to as " doctor " . > >We need the vision that Z'ev referred to earlier. >And we do need this discussion as it defines who/what we do/are. >Just as this list is for the discussion of complexities involving Chinese >herbs (not for needles, lasers, tui-na, magnets, etc) and for standards >that >we can strive for as well as be held to. > >personally, I believe I am competent (must be cause california says so) but >believe that more training and even more training will improve my skills. >Yet I remain befuddled by the lack of direction and standards offered by my >profession. It all seems to be Madison-Avenue Hype. I do agree with the >last >part of Mike's statement that " yet we are not there " > >Again what makes this list valuable to me has been the discussion of the >complex herbal cases and use of herbs. I am guided by these open >discussions. Titles are for ego's, yes, but they help knowing from whence >the discussion springs forth. > >It may just be an applied placebo [30% patients will get better just by >wearing a white coat] but a title that someone believes in, aspires to, and >is held accountable to, produces better results. > > >When I agonized over the California State Boards and their relationship >(value) to actual clinical practice, Miriam Lee told me " get your license >first, you can not do anything without first getting your license, then you >can learn " > >Students are like clay that are shaped into an image by the profession. >The public hold an image of who their physician is. >Images (titles) are important >You can not have healing without an image. > >Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist > > 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.