Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Mike, Perhaps you are new to this group. There have been many debates, on this group and others, over pro- and anti-licensure for TCM, especially herbal practice. The issue is by no means settled, and it would be mistaken to assume that there is concensus. I am in contact with many western-style herbalists, who I would estimate are 95+% opposed to licensure. Many western herbalists are also more savvy about the European and American legal tradition and history of herbalism, which perhaps explains this high percentage. 150 years is a short time in human history. Yet that is approximately the length of time that licensing of the health professions has been a standard within the U.S.A. Before that, licensing, even for physicians of all types, was the exception. For historical and legal perspectives on licensing, see: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr4.regul.html Dilemmas in regulating the practice of Chinese herbology http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html The right to practice herbology, legal history and basis http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr1.hist.html#christianity The rise of Christianity and the return of shamanism [the use of medical licensing by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages to impose religious dogma upon medical practitioners] http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#lob Orwellian schemes for maximizing health-care industry profits - How these endanger the practice of herbal medicine subheading: Lobbying public officials and influencing non-profit institutions and the media (on the use of regulation to sabotage alternative health options) The following articles include references and explanations of the widely promulgated views of Milton Friedman, a well-known economist, on the subject of medical licensing; licensing is not the only or even the best way to promote professionalism, and several alternatives are discussed. http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/licensing.htm THE CASE AGAINST MEDICAL LICENSING http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/freespeechorcivilliberties/occ\ uplicen.html Occupational Licensure Under Attack by Melvin D. Barger http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-246.html Cato Policy Analysis No. 246, December 15, 1995 The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers Or Limiting Competition? by Sue A. Blevins http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/SvornyDoEconomistsAugust2004.pdf Licensing Doctors: Do Economists Agree? by SHIRLEY SVORNY* Also, see Buhner, Stephen; " Some Arguments against the Standardization of Herbalists " Herbalgram, No. 58 (2003 Spring) pp.54-58. (Also in webpage at: http://www.herbalgram.org/iherb/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2524 This article documents how professional licensing and regulation seldom result in improved health care delivery, but are almost always guaranteed to increase costs, to minimize competition, to reduce the public's freedom of choice, and in some cases, to actually decrease quality of care. The following article describes how mandatory public schooling, school accreditation, and professional licensing have been used as tools to dumb down the population: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-4.html The Dumbing Down of American Education: Implications for Herbal Education Regarding licensing of the health care professions, the current trend is away from licensing. Just recently, the American Massage Therapy Association lobbied for licensure of massage therapists in Montana; they were overwhelmingly defeated and word is they will not even make an attempt for many years. Although 150 years may seem like a long time, the pendulum is slowly swinging the other direction and gaining momentum. Witness the passage of Health Freedom Acts in three states with more considering such. In spite of Patriot-Act insanity, perhaps even because of it, the libertarian perspective is gaining powerful momentum and the backlash against the big-government " nanny state " is strong. I predict there will be gains and losses in the next 10-20 years, but the trend is clear. I rest my case... ---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 ====================== > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 >RE: priorities, organizations and doctorates > >As for freedom, there is no such thing. We practice >under a regulated governmental body in every state with a license. I do not >hear people making issues over the need for licensing. Licensing and >educational standards are what defines how and who can practice a >profession. ---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 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Roger, Thanks for your excellent reply to Mike. You have given all of us lots of food for thought. Thanks especially for all the excellent links in this and other of your posts. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 One of the differences here is that the FDA can take away many of our herbs, while if we are licensed to use them, we have ground to stand on, because we have an educational programme accepted by the Dept of Education, a examination that has educational requirements for sitting, and licensure in most states. That is why we get to sit and talk with them at all regarding herbs they consider toxic. It is a lot easier to prevent something from being imported than to make an herb illegal, so the Western herbalists can afford much more to remain on the fringes. I must admit though, that if evereyone else gives up their licenses, I'll be happy to join them. In the meantime, I'll be happy not to be receiving cease and desist orders or worse in the mail because I am licensed. David Molony In a message dated 12/9/04 7:12:49 PM, rw2 writes: > > > Mike, > > Perhaps you are new to this group. There have been many debates, on this > group and others, over pro- and anti-licensure for TCM, especially herbal > practice. The issue is by no means settled, and it would be mistaken to assume that > there is concensus. I am in contact with many western-style herbalists, who > I would estimate are 95+% opposed to licensure. Many western herbalists are > also more savvy about the European and American legal tradition and history of > herbalism, which perhaps explains this high percentage. > > 150 years is a short time in human history. Yet that is approximately the > length of time that licensing of the health professions has been a standard > within the U.S.A. Before that, licensing, even for physicians of all types, was > the exception. For historical and legal perspectives on licensing, see: > > > 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 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I agree with your statements. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac >acuman1 > > >Re: Re: doctoral folly, licensing, etc. >Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:38:59 EST > >One of the differences here is that the FDA can take away many of our >herbs, >while if we are licensed to use them, we have ground to stand on, because >we >have an educational programme accepted by the Dept of Education, a >examination >that has educational requirements for sitting, and licensure in most >states. >That is why we get to sit and talk with them at all regarding herbs they >consider toxic. It is a lot easier to prevent something from being imported >than to >make an herb illegal, so the Western herbalists can afford much more to >remain >on the fringes. >I must admit though, that if evereyone else gives up their licenses, I'll >be >happy to join them. In the meantime, I'll be happy not to be receiving >cease >and desist orders or worse in the mail because I am licensed. >David Molony > >In a message dated 12/9/04 7:12:49 PM, rw2 writes: > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > Perhaps you are new to this group. There have been many debates, on this > > group and others, over pro- and anti-licensure for TCM, especially >herbal > > practice. The issue is by no means settled, and it would be mistaken to >assume that > > there is concensus. I am in contact with many western-style herbalists, >who > > I would estimate are 95+% opposed to licensure. Many western herbalists >are > > also more savvy about the European and American legal tradition and >history of > > herbalism, which perhaps explains this high percentage. > > > > 150 years is a short time in human history. Yet that is approximately >the > > length of time that licensing of the health professions has been a >standard > > within the U.S.A. Before that, licensing, even for physicians of all >types, was > > the exception. For historical and legal perspectives on licensing, see: > > > > > > > > > > > >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...
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.