[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From:
[email protected] (Michele) Date: 1/28/04 4:06
> >PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <
[email protected]>
>
> >By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
> >cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
> >requirements -
>
> Demanding a license is one way to limit competition and increase the earnings of those who reside
> within the guild.
Requiring licensure is a way to establish basic standards. It stops those with no training in (as an
example) surgery from doing it. We expect those behind the wheel of a car to have met certain
criteria to drive. Other professions that don't require a gov't. isssued license still require that
those who work in the profession meet specific standards -- teachers require college degrees in most
areas of the country being such a situation.
> It works for carpenters and plumbers
Not sure about plumbers -- but carpenters aren't professionally licensed by the gov't. It hasn't
brought down the amount they charge.
> just as it works for doctors who wish to limit their competition.
It doesn't "limit competition" -- there are docs everywhere. In the cases of MD's specializing in
unusual problems, the number of patients requring that specialized treatment is what limits
practitioner numbers.
> Licensing in no way guarantees that the doc won't cut off the wrong leg or kill you with the wrong
> medication.
And drivers' licenses don't guarantee a safe driver -- but simply *hoping* a professional has met
minimal educational standards or that they might figure out how to perform a surgical procedure
leaves consumers at the mercy of anybody who comes down the pike. It also leaves them little
recourse when gross incompetence leads to serious injury or death. Without minimal standards, there
are no guidelines at all. Malpractice would become something patients need to accept without so much
as a grumble.
> >Restricting the use of surgery to those with surgical training is reasonable.
>
> True enough, but limiting surgery to only the allopaths is criminalistic and monopolistic. There
> is no reason chiropractors, naturopaths, and others could not be so trained except for the
> monopolistic laws on the books which limit surgery to allopaths.
Not so at all. Training for DC's, naturopaths, etc. doesn't include surgery because *those health
care philosophies don't include it*. Just as a massage therapist's training doesn't include the
prescription of drugs *because it's not part of massage*. Nutritionists don't fill cavities --
nurses don't perform chiropractic adjustments -- the list could go on. To expect that a health care
professional would be trained in modalities/skills that are not even a part of their purpose, that
contradict their approach to wellness is absurd.
> >Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer medication is just as logical.
>
> But forcing her to admister a drug which she knows is wrong happens often. If she refuses, the doc
> will have her fired.
Once again, totally untrue. A nurse is expected to use his/her nursing judgement & if that
contradicts an order, they are obligated to act in what they evaluate is the patient's best
interest. I've questioned docs in such situations -- checked to make sure dosages are right, that no
apparent contraindications exist for using a particular med, reminded MD's about considerations like
patient allergies & what the patient wanted or didn't want. On more than a couple of occasions I
declined to follow a specific order I thought would negatively impact a patient -- & was NEVER even
reprimanded (let alone fired) after I informed my supervisor or the MD of my decision. [And unless a
nurse works directly for a doctor, he's not the one who hires or fires a nurse. I ultimately answer
to the hospital or other facility where I work. The clinic where I currently work employs the
doctors & the MD Medical Director there -- just as they employ me.]
> >Conventional providers can & often do include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are
> >not forbidden by anyone from doing so.
>
> Now that is an absolute lie. You should have known better than to write that. In California, if an
> oncologist recommends or attempts to use an alt methodology that doc can be fined $10,000 dollars
> and lose his license to practice medicine.
It would be YOU lying with that one. An oncologist in any state can prescribe supplements -- massage
-- meditation -- or any other alt. modality to a patient. There is NO statute that prohibits a
doctor from encouraging the use of cell salts -- crystals -- or any other non-traditional therapy.
The MD is mandated not to deceive a patient with false information about various courses of
treatment, whether alt. or conventional -- & if *that* requirement is not met, then the doc has not
provided basic standards of care.
Many docs utilize alt. therapies along with more traditional treatments. Oncologists often prescribe
massage, acupuncture, meditation, exercise, supplements, etc.
> >The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.
>
> Who writes the rules for diagnosis?
Apples & oranges -- scope of practice only defines which professionals are qualified to do what.
State & sometimes Federal gov'ts. determine scope of practice, nothing to do with the FDA.
There *are* no "rules for diagnosis". There are commonly acknowledged diagnostic procedures for many
disorders, but they are guidelines only -- not written in stone. As technology advances, as more
research gives us more information about various disorders & health care problems, those guidelines
change to reflect what we've found out. There are also definitions of diseases that outline s/s of
each. The diganosis of HTN involves not just elevated BP readings, but considers the frequency &
consistency of such readings, the circumstances where the increased BP is observed, etc. Once again,
most disorders are defined by generally acepted guidelines, not laws imposed by any gov't. or
governmental agency.
> It is my understanding that the FDA changed the rules for diagnosing polio which effectively
> curtailed the diagnosis of polio after introduction of the vaccine, but left intact an identical
> disease called aceptic meningitis.
They are not the same. Just as seizures could be caused by a tumor or by a blow to the head,
disorders sharing the same s/s could have very different etiologies & respond to very different
treatments.
If there *were* "rules for diagnosis", there would no misdiagnosed patients.
> >So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....
>
> And greedy lawyers keep the doctors worried and in the flock, so to speak.
Follow along, CEE. If staying "in the flock" prevented patients from winning lawsuits, how come docs
get sued & patients win???? Your argument doesn't hold up. Anybody can sue anyone for anything at
anytime. The fact that some of the biggest charlatans -- alt. & conventional -- don't get sued also
pokes big ol' holes in your statement.
> >The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate,
> >reporting of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their
> >educational/experiential credentials honestly.
>
> Yuk, yuk , yuk.
>
> No one reading your posts or the posts of the other debunkers could ever believe honesty resides
> within your camp.
Your entire post contains nothing more than misinformation & outright untruths. Citing conspiracies
that don't exist doesn't change that.
Michele I ENJOY being a cranky *****.