Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection

January 5, 2005

Hi Mike -

RE Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection

Appropriate question for I'll add a little, what are the specific

problems and strengths with the CSOMA testimony? Todd - there is only one

solution

to changing policy. Involvement. Reach out to CSOMA and request to be placed

into the editorial committee so you can have input on this type of document

before release. Or, you can provide your own testimony. CSOMA did go to bat for

the profession on ma huang, and we can still prescribe it in California. All

organizations have weaknesses as well as strengths I say give them support,

communicate and hold them accountable.

Andrea - the hearings went well. Everyone was civil and collegial. The CMA

adopted the expected position regarding turf around the terms 'diagnosis' and

'primary care.' However, we already have a basis in code and legislative intent

for these expression related to our field.

Here is a portion of the AAOM written testimony:

The AAOM acknowledges the concerns of this Joint Committee regarding the

Acupuncture Board and its process as well as the concerns about the need for a

clear articulation of â€˜primary careâ€™ status for the provider of acupuncture

and

Oriental Medicine in California. We specifically support the original

legislative intent in the 1980 creation of B & P Code Section 4925. The sections

on

independent practice, imply both â€˜primary careâ€™ and â€˜diagnosis.â€™

Governor Jerry

Brown testified to the Little Hoover Commission, that this language was

designed to ensure access to Chinese medicine for not only the stateâ€™s

substantial

Asian population but also for all Californians.

The California acupuncturist serves a different set of needs today than when

the profession first began. There are more interactions within

multidisciplinary health settings. The courts, insurance companies and patients

all require

that conditions be discussed on the basis of biomedical terms. Competencies

related to the expanding role of the practitioner include, currency and evidence

based practices, patient care, professionalism and systems based medicine. In

addition, national standards for school accreditation by ACAOM require

biomedical clinical competencies that are found in the following topic areas:

Pathology and the biomedical disease model

The nature of the biomedical clinical process including history

taking, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

The clinical relevance of laboratory and diagnostic tests and

procedures as well as biomedical physical examination findings

Infectious diseases, sterilization procedures, needle handling and

disposal, and other issues relevant to blood borne and surface pathogens

Biomedical pharmacology including relevant aspects of potential

medication, herb and nutritional supplement interactions, contraindications and

side

effects and how to

access

this information

The basis and need for referral and/orconsultation

The range of biomedical referral resources and the modalities they

employ

Issue #1 question for the Board and DCA: Should the Board be transformed into

a bureau or be fully reconstituted?

It is the opinion of the AAOM that Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine is a

profession that is still in the early phases of growth and that this situation

presents unique complexities that require the specialized expertise from

experienced practitioners of the profession. In this regard, the public interest

and

safety is best served through administration that includes individuals who

possess relevant subject matter expertise in the field of acupuncture and

Oriental Medicine, such as educators and practitioners, in addition to public

members

with diverse areas of expertise.

Issue #2 question for the Board and DCA: What are the key differences between

the scope of practice of an acupuncturist and the scope of practice of a

physician? Does current law permit acupuncturists to act as primary care

providers, even to the extent of diagnosing, prescribing, and referring based

upon

Western models of medicine? How should the Board educate potential licensees,

depending upon the answers to these previous questions? How can the Board

reconcile vast increases in educational requirements for new licenses while

arguing

that 30 hours of continuing education every 2 years for current licenses is

adequate?

2.1 The distinctions between a Medical Doctorâ€™s scope of practice and

acupuncturists must be inferred through an analysis of the legal code. Medical

Doctors have an open scope of practice, which means they can practice any

modality

unless prohibited by law while acupuncturists have a defined range of practices

and procedures.

This the scope language B & P 4937: An acupuncturist's license authorizes the

holder thereof: (a) To engage in the practice of acupuncture. (b) To

perform or prescribe the use of oriental massage, acupressure, breathing

techniques, exercise, heat, cold, magnets, nutrition, diet, herbs, plant,

animal, and

mineral products, and dietary supplements to promote, maintain, and restore

health. Nothing in this section prohibits any person who does not possess an

acupuncturist's license or another license as a healing arts practitioner from

performing, or prescribing the use of any modality listed in this subdivision.

produces a magnetic field without the application of an electric current. (d)

For purposes of this section, " plant, animal, and mineral products " ; means

naturally occurring substances of plant, animal, or mineral origin, except that

it does not include synthetic compounds, controlled substances or dangerous

drugs as defined in Sections 4021 and 4022, or a controlled substance listed in

Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and

Safety Code. (e) For purposes of this section, " dietary supplement " ; has the

same meaning as defined in subsection (ff) of Section 321 of Title 21 of the

United States Code, except that dietary supplement does not include controlled

substances or dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4021 or 4022, or a

controlled

substance listed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10

of the Health and Safety Code.

2.2.a Current law does permit acupuncturists to act as primary care

providers:

The following is primary care language and intent:

Acupuncturists were included as primary treating physicians in the Workers

Compensation system in 1989 and approved as a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)

(Labor Code Section3209.3(a)).

â€œThe primary health care providerâ€ is defined in the California

Administrative Code (C.A.C.), Title 22, Section 51170.5 as: Health care

professional

services provided in a continuing relationship established with an individual or

family group in order to provide:

Surveillance of health needs

Access to comprehensive health care

Referral to other health professionals

Health counseling and patient education

Primary care is generally provided by physicians and surgeons and by

non-physician medical practitioners including nurse practitioners, physician

assistants and nurse midwives whose practice is predominately that of general

medicine,

family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics or gynecology.

Primary Health Care Provider â€œPrimary health care provider means a licensed

health care provider who provides the initial health care services to a patient

and who, within the scope of his or her license, is responsible for initial

diagnosis and treatment, health supervision, preventive health services, and

referral to other health care providers when specialized care is indicated.â€

Other Testimony:

Interesting argument for a free standing board from the Chinese

representatives: In China the proactive of OM is under a separate board from the

western

medical board, whereas in Taiwan, the OM board is under the western medical

board.

Neal Miller testified with history on the CAB's Educational Task Force. I sat

in on all the Task Force meetings and confirm this testimony. They arrived at

roughly 3800 hours competency range and there was a political compromise for

the sake of expediency to 3, 000 entry level. Most school are already beyond

that. It is beyond my comprehension that schools offering over 3,000 hours of

training argue for a 2,3000 training, but that happened. The 3,000 hour

compromise does not reflect the reality of where the CAB Educational Task Force

landed, as the schools, teachers and practitioners sorted through the necessary

competencies for the practice of acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, they did

arrive at round figures between 3,600 hours and 3,900 hours.

I am interested in what is to be said here at CHA, however, my work load

doesn't permit much activity and I can't respond for the next few weeks, I will

collect comments and reflect them back. The testimony has not been submitted as

of yet. One last thing, the testimony provided by the AAOM, CSOMA, and AIMS

was all approved and consistent with the Chinese professional organizational

leadership here in California.

Will

> We need our associations to get more involved like this. What do you have

> a

> problem with?

> Later

>

Will Morris, LAc., OMD, MSEd

President, AAOM

310-453-8300 phone

310-829-3838 fax

January 5, 2005

Hi Will,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on yesterday's meeting, and

testimony presented. Would you mind if I share this with my school,

the Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences in Oakland?

I know folks there are following this closely and would be interested

in knowing how things are going.

Thanks again.

Kindest Regards,

Andrea Miller Anderson

January 5, 2005

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

what are the specific

> problems and strengths with the CSOMA testimony? Todd - there is

only one solution

> to changing policy. Involvement. Reach out to CSOMA and request to

be placed

> into the editorial committee so you can have input on this type of

document

> before release. Or, you can provide your own testimony.

I have been clear ad nauseum about my position and have no intent to

restate it once again. I have a 13 page blog on the LHc report posted

on my website homepage for months now. I have niether been vague or

unreswponsive. I havce been quite clear and I detail. My " testimony "

stands for itself and any failure to answer requests for more

clasrification are just not possible. search google, my blog is the

most extensive thing on the internet on this topic right now. but in

a nutshell, I do not belive the board is legally correct about the

primary care issue and I thought for many years before LHC and thus

thyey are wasting our time. If we want the status, I think we need

new legislation. Personally, I don't even want the status. For

details, see my blog.

As for my participation, I consider myself the press. CHA more than

anything else is a place where I post news, opinion, editorial and

commentary. I can think of no other label for it than journalism. I

know others dispute this, but so be it. My posts are generally essays

and I could easily post them in a more formal online journal. those

who participate in institutions are often wont to complain about the

press as a bunch of do nothing whiners, but the press, IMO, is a vital

part of democracy. I could perhaps participate in a national org and

also be a credible part of the fourth estate, but not to my own eyes.

My vested interest is as a PCOM professor and owner of CHA. The

things I do are not really affected that much by whether I am called

doctor, can make a dx, bill insurance, etc. I expect my job is safe

regardless of whether acupuncture is more or less restricted in the

future, even if licensing was abandoned altogether. The nightmare

scenarios of losing independent practiuce rights are just BS, so I

won't even dignify that. I think I have been fairly critical of my

employer at times, but if I evidence any impartiality, it is in that

regard. I have no intention to compromise this journalistic

detachment from politics in order to be more " involved " . I am

involved. Someone needs to challenge the institutions and not just

compromise as part of the team. The only team I am on is planet earth

and I do what I think is best for all of them, not just for me and my

closest pals. sorry.

January 5, 2005

Maybe you are right and you should not participate. Our profession needs

people with conviction who want to think about the profession and not just

their own personal beliefs. Sorry that we tried to include you. Best of

luck to you.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> " " <

>

> Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

>Protection

>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:00:15 -0000

>

> , WMorris116@A... wrote:

>

>what are the specific

> > problems and strengths with the CSOMA testimony? Todd - there is

>only one solution

> > to changing policy. Involvement. Reach out to CSOMA and request to

>be placed

> > into the editorial committee so you can have input on this type of

>document

> > before release. Or, you can provide your own testimony.

>

>I have been clear ad nauseum about my position and have no intent to

>restate it once again. I have a 13 page blog on the LHc report posted

>on my website homepage for months now. I have niether been vague or

>unreswponsive. I havce been quite clear and I detail. My " testimony "

>stands for itself and any failure to answer requests for more

>clasrification are just not possible. search google, my blog is the

>most extensive thing on the internet on this topic right now. but in

>a nutshell, I do not belive the board is legally correct about the

>primary care issue and I thought for many years before LHC and thus

>thyey are wasting our time. If we want the status, I think we need

>new legislation. Personally, I don't even want the status. For

>details, see my blog.

>

>As for my participation, I consider myself the press. CHA more than

>anything else is a place where I post news, opinion, editorial and

>commentary. I can think of no other label for it than journalism. I

>know others dispute this, but so be it. My posts are generally essays

>and I could easily post them in a more formal online journal. those

>who participate in institutions are often wont to complain about the

>press as a bunch of do nothing whiners, but the press, IMO, is a vital

>part of democracy. I could perhaps participate in a national org and

> also be a credible part of the fourth estate, but not to my own eyes.

>

>My vested interest is as a PCOM professor and owner of CHA. The

>things I do are not really affected that much by whether I am called

>doctor, can make a dx, bill insurance, etc. I expect my job is safe

>regardless of whether acupuncture is more or less restricted in the

>future, even if licensing was abandoned altogether. The nightmare

>scenarios of losing independent practiuce rights are just BS, so I

>won't even dignify that. I think I have been fairly critical of my

>employer at times, but if I evidence any impartiality, it is in that

>regard. I have no intention to compromise this journalistic

>detachment from politics in order to be more " involved " . I am

>involved. Someone needs to challenge the institutions and not just

>compromise as part of the team. The only team I am on is planet earth

>and I do what I think is best for all of them, not just for me and my

>closest pals. sorry.

>

>Todd

>

January 6, 2005

With all due respect to those of you who participate in the status quo TCM

organizations, I support Todd's position on this general issue. Todd and I have

posted extensively on such issues as accreditation and licensing. When I've

documented past abuses and problems, and have given people on this list, members

of accreditation and licensing boards, and the general public a chance to rebut

or respond, and they choose to ignore Todd's and my arguments as if they do not

exist, that says more than anything. This failure to address our concerns speaks

volumes more than any polite participation in organizations could possibly

achieve.

Long ago, I realized that organizations have a way of bulldozing through their

own agendas. It is a common tactic to offer well-publicized meetings to allow

public participation ( " show-and-tell " ), then claim that the public had their

say, and proceed to bulldoze. This technique has been developed into a fine art

and is referred to by organizational think-tank people as the " Delphi "

technique. Initially introduced by Rand Corporation in the 1950's and then

further developed by Tavistock Institute, National Training Labs, SRI, and MIT,

it is a powerful method with both positive and negative potential...

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion

of citizen participation

http://www.educationnews.org/facilitator_are_you_a_delphi_tar.htm

THE Facilitator: Are You A Delphi Target?

http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch3b1.html

The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:zIfaDbJmsIkJ:www.fs.fed.us/servicefirst/sus\

tained/minerals/gen-delphdes.rtf+Delphi+persuasion & hl=en & ie=UTF-8

Delphi Process Description - Summary

If you type in " Delphi technique " into Google, you will find lots of references.

Many school administrators, corporate officers, and government officials receive

training as Delphi " facilitators " . I've participated in a number of public

meetings in during which a number of us took notes and did an NLP/deep-structure

analysis of what was said during the meeting, in order to understand how the

facilitators operate. Slick stuff, but most people have no idea what hit them.

I've seen people leave such meetings in a daze.

Instead of participating in official bureaucracies, I take my arguments directly

to the Internet, where people all over the world are free to send me comments in

agreement or disagreement. When bureaucracies become unresponsive and

manipulative via such techniques as Delphi, this is an effective, alternative

method of promoting change. People need to get used to the idea that there are

other means to effect change than going begging to the bureaucracies.

---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: Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection

>

>Maybe you are right and you should not participate. Our profession needs

>people with conviction who want to think about the profession and not just

>their own personal beliefs. Sorry that we tried to include you. Best of

>luck to you.

>Later

>Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>> " " <

>>

>> Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

>>Protection

>>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:00:15 -0000

>>

>> , WMorris116@A... wrote:

>>

>>what are the specific

>> > problems and strengths with the CSOMA testimony? Todd - there is

>>only one solution

>> > to changing policy. Involvement. Reach out to CSOMA and request to

>>be placed

>> > into the editorial committee so you can have input on this type of

>>document

>> > before release. Or, you can provide your own testimony.

---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

January 6, 2005

It is good to acknowledge and bring up areas where things can be improved

but let's not forget that in many states the only way practitioners are

allowed to practice the modalities of Chinese medicine is by forming a group

and creating legislation. While I do not condone this type of bulldozer

mentality, sometimes it is important to realize that is how our opposition

has achieved success. Most of us would be in jail for practicing medicine

if we had not organized. I think we can have organizations and also that

they can represent us better. The way to change this is get involved (kind

of like what has been mentioned about infiltrating the Republican party) and

work toward making changes. You do not throw out the baby just because the

bath water is dirty.

Later,

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>rw2

>

> Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

>Protection

>Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:18:27 -0700

>

>With all due respect to those of you who participate in the status quo TCM

>organizations, I support Todd's position on this general issue. Todd and I

>have posted extensively on such issues as accreditation and licensing. When

>I've documented past abuses and problems, and have given people on this

>list, members of accreditation and licensing boards, and the general public

>a chance to rebut or respond, and they choose to ignore Todd's and my

>arguments as if they do not exist, that says more than anything. This

>failure to address our concerns speaks volumes more than any polite

>participation in organizations could possibly achieve.

>

>Long ago, I realized that organizations have a way of bulldozing through

>their own agendas. It is a common tactic to offer well-publicized meetings

>to allow public participation ( " show-and-tell " ), then claim that the public

>had their say, and proceed to bulldoze. This technique has been developed

>into a fine art and is referred to by organizational think-tank people as

>the " Delphi " technique. Initially introduced by Rand Corporation in the

>1950's and then further developed by Tavistock Institute, National Training

>Labs, SRI, and MIT, it is a powerful method with both positive and

>negative potential...

>

>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html

> Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

> How it is leading us away from representative government to an

>illusion of citizen participation

>

>http://www.educationnews.org/facilitator_are_you_a_delphi_tar.htm

> THE Facilitator: Are You A Delphi Target?

>

>http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch3b1.html

> The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications

>

>http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:zIfaDbJmsIkJ:www.fs.fed.us/servicefirst/su\

stained/minerals/gen-delphdes.rtf+Delphi+persuasion & hl=en & ie=UTF-8

> Delphi Process Description - Summary

>

>If you type in " Delphi technique " into Google, you will find lots of

>references. Many school administrators, corporate officers, and government

>officials receive training as Delphi " facilitators " . I've participated in a

>number of public meetings in during which a number of us took notes and did

>an NLP/deep-structure analysis of what was said during the meeting, in

>order to understand how the facilitators operate. Slick stuff, but most

>people have no idea what hit them. I've seen people leave such meetings in

>a daze.

>

>Instead of participating in official bureaucracies, I take my arguments

>directly to the Internet, where people all over the world are free to send

>me comments in agreement or disagreement. When bureaucracies become

>unresponsive and manipulative via such techniques as Delphi, this is an

>effective, alternative method of promoting change. People need to get used

>to the idea that there are other means to effect change than going begging

>to the bureaucracies.

>

>---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: Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

>Protection

> >

> >Maybe you are right and you should not participate. Our profession needs

> >people with conviction who want to think about the profession and not

>just

> >their own personal beliefs. Sorry that we tried to include you. Best of

> >luck to you.

> >Later

> >Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> >> " " <

> >>

> >> Re: Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

> >>Protection

> >>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:00:15 -0000

> >>

> >> , WMorris116@A... wrote:

> >>

> >>what are the specific

> >> > problems and strengths with the CSOMA testimony? Todd - there is

> >>only one solution

> >> > to changing policy. Involvement. Reach out to CSOMA and request to

> >>be placed

> >> > into the editorial committee so you can have input on this type of

> >>document

> >> > before release. Or, you can provide your own testimony.

>

>---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

>

January 6, 2005

THE Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection, LHC, et al,

believes that Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine is still too immature to

recognize early on [hepatitis C], do a proper diagnosis of [hepatitis C] or know

the exact treatment and proper dosage and is too immature to potentially save

lives and reduce suffering.

The outcome has already been decided.

shortly one of two things will happen

1. It will be illegal for me to practice what I have been educated to do or

2. make me (legally) incompetent to do what I am licensed to do.

For example:

Sho-saiko-to (Xaio Chai Hu Tang) a simple (yet eloquent) Chinese herbal formula

from the Shang Hun Lun, is currently undergoing clinical phase II trial in the

U.S. specifically for hepatitis C. This trial is under the Investigative New

Drug (IND) category from the FDA and is being conducted at Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

â€œnew drugsâ€ under section 201(p) of the Act [21 USC 1321(p)] may not be

legally marketed in the U.S. without prior FDA approval as described in section

505(a) of the Act [21 USC 355(a)]. FDA approves ___a new drug__ on the basis of

scientific data submitted by a __drug__ sponsor to demonstrate that the

___drug__ is safe and effective.

Under the Act, as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act

(DSHEA), dietary supplements may be legally marketed with truthful and

non-misleading claims to affect the structure or function of the body

(structure/function claims), if certain conditions are met. However, claims that

dietary supplements are intended to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure

disease (disease claims), excepting health claims authorized for use by FDA,

cause the products to be drugs.

THIS IS IT. The FOOD and drug Administration is blind to Food it only can see

drugs.

Why is our profession not up in arms over this.

Is Sho-saiko-to (Xaio Chai Hu Tang) a food/herb or a drug ?

Well lets see. If it works ... its a drug. If it doesn't work ... its a herb.

The intended use of a product may be established through product labels and

labeling, catalogs, brochures, audio and videotapes, Internet sites, or other

circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product.

The FDA is the authority that DEFINES the distinction between structure/function

claims and disease claims.

http://vm.cfsan.fda.govbird/fr000106.html (codified at 21 C.F.R. 101.93(g)).

That decision is made. Chinese herbs THAT WORK are drugs (Ma Huang, Ban Xia,

Xiao Chai Hu tang ...) and may pose a substantial health risk - unless

prescribed by - a duly authorized and FDA approved medical licensure. note:

California acupuncture licensure prohibits dispensing drugs.

The FDA banned Fermented Red Rice. Its not a food. Its a drug. Fermented Red

Rice lowers cholesterol. Foods can not lower cholesterol only drugs can.

Therefore Fermented Red Rice is a drug. Thanks UCLA for that study!!!

The opinion that Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine is a profession that is still

in the early phases of growth is ignorance.

We know foods heal. OK you don't so lets talk about Gynecology. The bulk of

medical practice. While Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine treated PMS (can't

say " cure " ) western doctors totality of treatment until the 1950's was 2

aspirins and close the door. What happened in the 1950's -- women were allowed

to be doctors !

Where am I going.

Political acceptance is at the heart of the matter - not the substance.

What is at stake is simply the political life of Acupuncture and Oriental

Medicine.

Politics does not rest upon merit. And it is not a public debate. Being " the

Best " is far down the list. Ignorance most often tops the Best. Everyday

western medicine tells thousands of people " there is nothing to do for you. Go

home and die (quietly, please). Nothing outside their vision is acceptable. This

is not ignorance - it is cruelty because they enforce their arrogance by making

it illegal to even try anything else. It is illegal (in the U.S.) to treat

cancer except by an authorized cancer M.D. It is ignorance for them to say my

profession is not up to " their " standards. Thank God we have different

standards! [i am not speaking of the great many gifted and talented doctors, or

even to doctors as a profession in general - but to their political system].

If you accept the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer

Protection, the LHC, the FDA, the numerous clamorous associations, et al, you

may well $$profit$$ but you will lose your spirit/SHEN that brought you to

this profession in the first place.

One parting reminder.

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine has survived every known political

demagoguery, intimidation, conspiracy and inquisition known to mankind.

One should ask Why?

Ed Kasper LAc, Santa Cruz, CA

January 10, 2005

In a message dated 1/6/05 4:12:53 PM, rw2 writes:

> " When I've documented past abuses and problems, and have given people on

> this list, members of accreditation and licensing boards, and the general

> public a chance to rebut or respond, and they choose to ignore Todd's and my

> arguments as if they do not exist, that says more than anything. This failure

to

> address our concerns speaks volumes more than any polite participation in

> organizations could possibly achieve. "

>

Perhaps because in a perfect world, you both are right. But now it is not and

you aren't. It is wonderful to talk about such things but if we can't import

herbs and can't use them with folks who can find them useful, and don't want

to spend a lot of money and time litigating and hopefully providn that we are

constitutionally correct and hopefully getting an adminsitrative judge that

will rule in our favor, then perhaps it is best to work within our imperfect

world. I'm politically active and have been harrassed by my medical board in the

past, and now know the limitations I have to operate under, and the loopholes

that exist to use while operating under those limitations so that I can get the

best possible results for my patients. Do I wish for more limitations or

less, or more responsibility or less?

Do I wonder why it is that our colleges (as a political organization) seem to

focus on reducing our responsibility and enhancing our limitations? Yes. Why?

Well, why does any corporate entity enter the political process? Why should

our colleges be any less responsible to their owners than Enron?

Are OM political organizations, one of which I am more familiar with than the

others, responsible to their owners when the push for more education and the

corresponding responsiblity, with reduced limitations? It seems that there is

a fairly large number of members of our profession that support this idea, or

it would not be an issue that is being pushed, with far fewer dollars, while

those arguing for less responsiblity and less education pull the other

direction.

Note: I am no longer on the AAOM board or Executive director of AAOM, so I am

now able to represent my views when writing without having people perceive

that I am representing the AAOM any more. This is a relief to me because I can

now communicate without holding back, in a way similar to Todd. Perhaps I shall

go into journalism too! I have a lot of opinions, as do we all.

" Long ago, I realized that organizations have a way of bulldozing through

their own agendas. It is a common tactic to offer well-publicized meetings to

allow public participation ( " show-and-tell " ), then claim that the public had

their say, and proceed to bulldoze. This technique has been developed into a

fine

art and is referred to by organizational think-tank people as the " Delphi "

technique. Initially introduced by Rand Corporation in the 1950's and then

further developed by Tavistock Institute, National Training Labs, SRI, and MIT,

it

is a powerful method with both positive and negative potential... "

It is the way most every governmental and non governmental organizationis

run, and depends on the ethics and intention of the body. The thing is that any

person who wants to can fairly easily get on to any national OM board in the

country within a year or so of doing some basic volunteer efforts. I have not

see anyone who was participatory and non antagonistic not get a major part of

thier personal agenda addressed and worked on, and many times incorporated to a

large extent within the organization. This is easy within our profession, but

requires a level of flexibility among all involved. Inflexible folks tend to

work in more, shall we say, inflexible, venues, like S-corporations and slef

run small businesses with fewer folks having input into the whole. There is

certainly advantages to this as well, but they are not a parcipitatory process.

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.

January 11, 2005

At 8:36 PM -0500 1/10/05, acuman1 wrote:

>Do I wonder why it is that our colleges (as a political organization) seem to

>focus on reducing our responsibility and enhancing our limitations? Yes. Why?

>Well, why does any corporate entity enter the political process? Why should

>our colleges be any less responsible to their owners than Enron?

--

Dave,

This is a pretty bleak assessment. Of course, some schools are

non-profits, so should be operating with a different overall mission

than maximizing profits at the expense of the profession (although

they need to operate at a profit obviously). I hope those schools

also get their voices heard.

Rory

--

January 11, 2005

In a message dated 1/11/05 9:46:24 AM, rorykerr writes:

> Dave,

>

> This is a pretty bleak assessment. Of course, some schools are

> non-profits, so should be operating with a different overall mission

> than maximizing profits at the expense of the profession (although

> they need to operate at a profit obviously). I hope those schools

> also get their voices heard.

>

> Rory

>

Even non profits many times assess the end of the year bonus for staff on

profits, er, unused monies. My view is that there is a constant push/pull

between

the profession, who want to move on to how they see the future of our

profession, and the colleges, who have to accomodate that push with better and

more

advanced education. Both have a right to do what they feel is right and they do

so, which is what politics is about. From my knowledge of OM history, the

biggest mistake we made was not doing like all other professions did and

starting

out with a clinical doctorate and raising the curriculum to meet rising

expectations of that degree. The profession and the colleges are more likely to

work together in such a case. A 3200 to 3600 hr Master's program is pretty much

unique in academia. Now, do we want to lower the hours, or bring them into line

with other professions who have a doctoral entry like Chiropractic,

Naturopathic, of whatever? Is Oriental MEdicine a field of medicine or is it a

couple

modalities to be practiced singularly by any other field, or in any hodge podge

of a la carte styles, with or without enough Western medicine knowledge to

practice independently and to the best advantage for our patients medically and

financially? We all disagree, but we need to find a sopt where we all disagree

equally so we can agree. This is what the panels are for, in their best

function. To come in with thier own expectations and to listen and adjust to

what

is seen as reasonable for the next few steps.

DAvid Molony