expansion or restriction

[Guest guest]

Mike

 

I think you are confused about something in the recent CA bills

regarding scope of practice. The LHC reported and the Joint

Legislative committee and the governor's task force both agreed that

the current scope of practice as interpreted by the board of

acupuncture was not LEGAL. that the board did not have the authority

to rule that that L.Ac. can do western diagnosis and have primary

care status equivalent to MDs. That this was never the intent of the

legislature. That the board had abrogated its duty to protect the

public and instead promoted the profession at the expense of the public.

 

The current bills in the state assembly are attempts to put into law

things that were never there in the first place. Such as the

explicit right to make a diagnosis. According to LHC, it is implicit

that acupuncturists have the right to make TCM diagnoses. Thus, this

new law would seem to be a vaguely worded backdoor attempt to

legalize western diagnosis. This would most certainly be an

EXPANSION of the current legal scope of practice in CA. My

opposition to this would thus not be support of rolling back scope,

but rather questioning whether the status quo needs to be changed to

include certain rights of questionable value that come in tandem with

certain responsibilities most of us don't want.

 

Why are some of you trying to force this down our throats? The LHC

has already suggested the only rational remedy for those who want

expanded scope. Get a second degree or postgrad training that allows

you that scope and prepare you to practice it. The only result I see

by giving L.Ac. scope they are not trained for is public harm and

increased malpractice rates for all of us. There needs to be a

solution that lets the majority opt out of this madness. And limit

it in some way to those who are both trained and inclined. And for

those who like to do as they please without government interference,

you shouldn't get a license in the first place.

 

[Guest guest]

The LHC reported and the Joint

Legislative committee and the governor's task force both agreed that

the current scope of practice as interpreted by the board of

acupuncture was not LEGAL. that

>>>Well, according to the head of the report that is incorrect and much more

study is needed to make this conclusion. Anyway, it is not legally binding and

we as a profession can still change the dialog

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There needs to be a

solution that lets the majority opt out of this madness.

>>>There you go again, what makes you the majority. Since the majority of LAc in

CA are Chinese i know you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Thanks for your opinion. Before you jump on board with this we all should

better understand that the LHC made many mistakes in both interpretation of

the profession and scope of practice. As it is currently practiced, we can

and many L Ac do, order routine lab tests. Others simply refer the patient

out. I think that maintaining this is important and adds support for the

increase in western science and better integrated care with referral.

 

One can easily argue that lower educational standards will lead to less

referral when appropriate and possibly more malpractice lawsuits as we will

not know when to refer. Will we be able to continue to refer?

 

This can then be used to place us back under the physician supervision. Our

biggest area of weakness seems to be in not knowing the facts and looking at

possible outcomes. I do not think any one of us will argue that current

times like these have not been seen during our lives. There is a political

entity that is trying to eliminate us and they are using our own

indecisiveness as a weapon against us (marketing campaign has been

successful). We need to start questioning our leaders as to why this is

happening not blindly accepting it. Previously, the CA gov had intended to

eliminate all boards and put them under the DCA. This failed and yet he has

targeted us as the only one to go. Have any of you bothered to think that

this might all be political and not related to healthcare?

 

Wake up, or lose a profession.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> <

>

>cha

> expansion or restriction

>Sun, 8 May 2005 10:49:36 -0700

>

>Mike

>

>I think you are confused about something in the recent CA bills

>regarding scope of practice. The LHC reported and the Joint

>Legislative committee and the governor's task force both agreed that

>the current scope of practice as interpreted by the board of

>acupuncture was not LEGAL. that the board did not have the authority

>to rule that that L.Ac. can do western diagnosis and have primary

>care status equivalent to MDs. That this was never the intent of the

>legislature. That the board had abrogated its duty to protect the

>public and instead promoted the profession at the expense of the public.

>

>The current bills in the state assembly are attempts to put into law

>things that were never there in the first place. Such as the

>explicit right to make a diagnosis. According to LHC, it is implicit

>that acupuncturists have the right to make TCM diagnoses. Thus, this

>new law would seem to be a vaguely worded backdoor attempt to

>legalize western diagnosis. This would most certainly be an

>EXPANSION of the current legal scope of practice in CA. My

>opposition to this would thus not be support of rolling back scope,

>but rather questioning whether the status quo needs to be changed to

>include certain rights of questionable value that come in tandem with

>certain responsibilities most of us don't want.

>

>Why are some of you trying to force this down our throats? The LHC

>has already suggested the only rational remedy for those who want

>expanded scope. Get a second degree or postgrad training that allows

>you that scope and prepare you to practice it. The only result I see

>by giving L.Ac. scope they are not trained for is public harm and

>increased malpractice rates for all of us. There needs to be a

>solution that lets the majority opt out of this madness. And limit

>it in some way to those who are both trained and inclined. And for

>those who like to do as they please without government interference,

>you shouldn't get a license in the first place.

>

>Todd

[Guest guest]

There is a political

entity that is trying to eliminate us and they are using our own

indecisiveness

>>>I would say greed

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609