I do not think so Soroush.,
Regardless WHERE they areworking, only homeopaths shoudl prescribe.
SO if there is a homeopathic hospital, there should be homeopaths there, who shoud be allowed to prescribe - as properly trained homeopaths - not as doctors.
If someone wants to be a doctor and a homeopath (a clash of princuiples) and has the full training for both (not just some first aid homeopahty course thrown together somewhere) then they can presceive deugs as doctors and remedeis as homeopaths.
But the two professions do not mix.
Are they working there as homeopaths or allopaths?
We need to be sure that homeopaths fo homeopathy prescribing.
Not allopaths.
Closing the place is not sensible but they need to be suitably staffed - we do not staff electical engineering businesses with plumbers who moonlighted in how to join wires.
Nor should homeopathic hospitals be staffed with soctors moonlighting in himeopajhty.
Those hospitals need fully trained homeopaths not alopaths who dabble...
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
Dear Irene
In many countries, unless one has been to med school, one cannot practise homeopathy.
By the account of two colleagues who attended the Faculty of Homeopathy in UK, their courses are good.
You have no doubt heard of Dr Blackie and Dr Fisher etc (Both physicians to the Queen of England). Of course Dr Blackie died many years ago, but her books are classics!
I understand your point of view of clash of philosophies, but when Drs recognise the power of homeopathy and what it can do and learn about it, then they usually leave the practise of conventional medicine and concentrate on Homeopathy. A very good example of this is our own Dr Shahrdar who owns Minutus!
And of course Kent was a doctor, as was our very own Samuel Hahnemann!
)
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 16 November 2015 20:00
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
You misunderstand Irene.
I do not think so Soroush.,
Regardless WHERE they areworking, only homeopaths shoudl prescribe.
SO if there is a homeopathic hospital, there should be homeopaths there, who shoud be allowed to prescribe - as properly trained homeopaths - not as doctors.
If someone wants to be a doctor and a homeopath (a clash of princuiples) and has the full training for both (not just some first aid homeopahty course thrown together somewhere) then they can presceive deugs as doctors and remedeis as homeopaths.
But the two professions do not mix.
There are Homeopathic hospitals in UK operating under NHS.
There are doctors also who have been trained in homeopathy who work in them.
Are they working there as homeopaths or allopaths?
We need to be sure that homeopaths fo homeopathy prescribing.
Not allopaths.
There is a move to close these units and stop doctor from prescribing homeopathic remedies.
Closing the place is not sensible but they need to be suitably staffed - we do not staff electical engineering businesses with plumbers who moonlighted in how to join wires.
Nor should homeopathic hospitals be staffed with soctors moonlighting in himeopajhty.
Those hospitals need fully trained homeopaths not alopaths who dabble...
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
In many countries, unless one has been to med school, one cannot practise homeopathy.
By the account of two colleagues who attended the Faculty of Homeopathy in UK, their courses are good.
You have no doubt heard of Dr Blackie and Dr Fisher etc (Both physicians to the Queen of England). Of course Dr Blackie died many years ago, but her books are classics!
I understand your point of view of clash of philosophies, but when Drs recognise the power of homeopathy and what it can do and learn about it, then they usually leave the practise of conventional medicine and concentrate on Homeopathy. A very good example of this is our own Dr Shahrdar who owns Minutus!
And of course Kent was a doctor, as was our very own Samuel Hahnemann!
)Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 16 November 2015 20:00
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
You misunderstand Irene.
I do not think so Soroush.,
Regardless WHERE they areworking, only homeopaths shoudl prescribe.
SO if there is a homeopathic hospital, there should be homeopaths there, who shoud be allowed to prescribe - as properly trained homeopaths - not as doctors.
If someone wants to be a doctor and a homeopath (a clash of princuiples) and has the full training for both (not just some first aid homeopahty course thrown together somewhere) then they can presceive deugs as doctors and remedeis as homeopaths.
But the two professions do not mix.
There are Homeopathic hospitals in UK operating under NHS.
There are doctors also who have been trained in homeopathy who work in them.
Are they working there as homeopaths or allopaths?
We need to be sure that homeopaths fo homeopathy prescribing.
Not allopaths.
There is a move to close these units and stop doctor from prescribing homeopathic remedies.
Closing the place is not sensible but they need to be suitably staffed - we do not staff electical engineering businesses with plumbers who moonlighted in how to join wires.
Nor should homeopathic hospitals be staffed with soctors moonlighting in himeopajhty.
Those hospitals need fully trained homeopaths not alopaths who dabble...
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
Hi Soroush,
The legal issues are a separate issue form the philosophical ones.
In USA one must take hats off to osteopaths as they avoided the situation by ALL going to medschool and then ADDING osteopathy training. But then they have a DO and never pretend to be allopaths, (though they have the same standing as allopaths legally) yet they use their system of health care by itself, and do not refer to themselves as other than osteopaths. They do not style themselves as "doctors who use osteopathy". They are osteopaths. Doctors of osteopathy. there is no ambiguity, and their lettes of credential are DO not MD.
I at first thought it was crazy to complete medschool and then study osteopathy as a way to become an osteopath when so much of medschool training would not be used. It is expensive excess training.
In a better world, the medical training would be divided into general medical training, plus a choice of osteopathy (for a DO) or homeopathy (for a DHom) or herbology (for a DHb) or allopathy (for a MD).
Osteopaths here have done the next best thing, that is currently available, and included medical schol as part of "Doctor of Osteopathy" training. But insisting on the credential referring to Osteopathy.
Homeopaths did not try that. Homeopathy is thus not seen a specific profession within the medical professions umbrella, but rather as a separate upstart system in competition with the medical prodession. The part about competition is what causes the most problems, and the excuses tossed about as supposed invalidity reasons not to accept the homeopathy profession which uses energy instead of chemicals (as does osteopathy), are all bogus and just that - excuses.
It is correct that homeopaths NEED the medical training part of medschool - and equally true that most homeopaths do not have it or want to get it. One has to know the subject well to even understand why it is so critically important.
So, I am all in agreement that homeopaths have proper medical training as a REQUIRED part of training to be a homeopath. I think that is where the biggest mistake is, in the homeopathy profession. Some homeopathy schools put in a few course units in anatomy and physiology but that is nowhere near enough. Yet the full medical school is too much. The detailed knowlede of drug prescribing and how to do surgery does not hurt to know, but is not direcetly part of homeopathy. Interpretation of data (blood and lab work, xrays, ultrasound, and other medical records) is more to the point, as these lead to understandfing of maintaining causes and also of symptoms and differential diagnosis.
Either way I still consider that one cannot be a good doctor and a good homeopath at the same time becasue each is a full time job requiring proper attention to the philosophy, requiring daily practice using it, and needing research in, and keeping up with research in context of the philosophy being followed. - there are not enough hours in the day to do justice to both conflicting philosophies and do justice to any patient.
The people practicing one or the other NEED to be identified as such by their main credential, as Osteopaths are with the DO credential. Otherwise it is too much like plumbers asking for electrician work, using their plumber credential.
No patient should trust an allopath claiming to "use homeopathy". I would far rather trust a homeopath who calls themselves a homeopath, than anyone introducing themselves as an MD, but expectring me to think of them otherwise - as a homeopath. Can't have it both ways!
BE one or the other - not both. The homepath (with orwithout medschool training) shoud BE andcall themseles, a homeopath. Otherwiuse they have not gotten the philosophy correct in THEIR heads, so why should any patient trust their thinking to be homeopathic in philosophy?
In a homeopathic hospital the homeopathy credential of the medical professional, needs to be the one by which a docor of homeopathy is recognized. Whatever their training.
In an osteopathic hospital the doctors will have DO.
In a hmeopathic hospital the doctors need a recognizable high level homeopathy designation, not a MD which is directly, and only, related to allopathy.
Those who take a particular course, usually claim it is good, else they are denigrating their own training that they paid for. It is hardly an objective opinion:-)
The Faculty of Homeopathy says on their website, about what their course offers:
"Doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, podiatrists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, chiropractors and vets will continue to see patients in their usual day to day practice and will be able to offer homeopathy alongside their usual treatment methods."
That most definitely is NOT my idea of an appropriate goal for the training of a homeopath!
I do NOT want a homeopath whose training was directly planned to be a pimple on the face of their allopathic practice.
Not relevant to the problem that UK is using Faculty of Homeopathy as an oficial recognition method of what a pmple homeopathy is for allopathy - clearly to add Euros to their income, not to use homeopathy becasue of what it is - what a crock!
Sorry but that is backwatds.
It is just wrong to put the allopaths in charge of what is or is not okay in their skewed opinion. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!
The result is exactly what the Faculty of Homeopahty offers. Total junk.
Not with Faculty of Homeopahty in charge. The GOAL - stated clearly - is to "be able to offer homeopathy alongside their USUAL ALLOPATHY.
WIth that as the course gial, nobody id aiming for true homeopahty, if they even have a clue what it is.
REAL homeopaths with a medical degree are those whof ound out the hard way that homeopahty works. THEY changed to homeopahty for PILOSOPHICAL reasons - none of which matter to the Faculty ogf Homeopahty - who h holds that Allopath is the USUAL philosophy AFTER the homeopathy course.
I attended vet school and medical school myself, also graduate school - I just did not study surgery and have no medical license. SO I am qualified to teach it, not pracrtice it, legally speaking. But I definitely use my medical knowledge all the time in homeopathy.
Just yesterday that was what I used to figure out that a cat diagnosed with FIP, actually has a Beta hemoytic streptococcal meningitis, (Streptococcus canis by a process of elimination on known symptoms of the differential diagnosis list I made) to explain his inability to walk properly, his painful spine, itching ear/head and photophobia and debility. The bacteria is able to compromise the blood brain barrier and would have entered via a middle ear infection.
I challenge a homeopath without medical training to figure that one out.
But MY emphasis in medical training is homepathy, not allopathy, and I see myslef as a homeopath as myu THINKING is homeopathic - medical knowledge is for how better to understand the maintaining cause, the pathology and damage it does etc, in an animal who can not even describe how he feels.
But NOT via the Faculty of Homeopathy paradigm!
And NOT by allopaths leading the way as to what constitutes what homeopahty is be used how!
Those are NOT homeopaths, who have Faculty of Homepathy credentials. They teach exactly the opposite of the correct approach.
One needs to learn to think as a homepath.
THAT has to be the goal of any valid homeopahty training.
Nothing less will do.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
The legal issues are a separate issue form the philosophical ones.
In USA one must take hats off to osteopaths as they avoided the situation by ALL going to medschool and then ADDING osteopathy training. But then they have a DO and never pretend to be allopaths, (though they have the same standing as allopaths legally) yet they use their system of health care by itself, and do not refer to themselves as other than osteopaths. They do not style themselves as "doctors who use osteopathy". They are osteopaths. Doctors of osteopathy. there is no ambiguity, and their lettes of credential are DO not MD.
I at first thought it was crazy to complete medschool and then study osteopathy as a way to become an osteopath when so much of medschool training would not be used. It is expensive excess training.
In a better world, the medical training would be divided into general medical training, plus a choice of osteopathy (for a DO) or homeopathy (for a DHom) or herbology (for a DHb) or allopathy (for a MD).
Osteopaths here have done the next best thing, that is currently available, and included medical schol as part of "Doctor of Osteopathy" training. But insisting on the credential referring to Osteopathy.
Homeopaths did not try that. Homeopathy is thus not seen a specific profession within the medical professions umbrella, but rather as a separate upstart system in competition with the medical prodession. The part about competition is what causes the most problems, and the excuses tossed about as supposed invalidity reasons not to accept the homeopathy profession which uses energy instead of chemicals (as does osteopathy), are all bogus and just that - excuses.
It is correct that homeopaths NEED the medical training part of medschool - and equally true that most homeopaths do not have it or want to get it. One has to know the subject well to even understand why it is so critically important.
So, I am all in agreement that homeopaths have proper medical training as a REQUIRED part of training to be a homeopath. I think that is where the biggest mistake is, in the homeopathy profession. Some homeopathy schools put in a few course units in anatomy and physiology but that is nowhere near enough. Yet the full medical school is too much. The detailed knowlede of drug prescribing and how to do surgery does not hurt to know, but is not direcetly part of homeopathy. Interpretation of data (blood and lab work, xrays, ultrasound, and other medical records) is more to the point, as these lead to understandfing of maintaining causes and also of symptoms and differential diagnosis.
Either way I still consider that one cannot be a good doctor and a good homeopath at the same time becasue each is a full time job requiring proper attention to the philosophy, requiring daily practice using it, and needing research in, and keeping up with research in context of the philosophy being followed. - there are not enough hours in the day to do justice to both conflicting philosophies and do justice to any patient.
The people practicing one or the other NEED to be identified as such by their main credential, as Osteopaths are with the DO credential. Otherwise it is too much like plumbers asking for electrician work, using their plumber credential.
No patient should trust an allopath claiming to "use homeopathy". I would far rather trust a homeopath who calls themselves a homeopath, than anyone introducing themselves as an MD, but expectring me to think of them otherwise - as a homeopath. Can't have it both ways!
BE one or the other - not both. The homepath (with orwithout medschool training) shoud BE andcall themseles, a homeopath. Otherwiuse they have not gotten the philosophy correct in THEIR heads, so why should any patient trust their thinking to be homeopathic in philosophy?
In a homeopathic hospital the homeopathy credential of the medical professional, needs to be the one by which a docor of homeopathy is recognized. Whatever their training.
In an osteopathic hospital the doctors will have DO.
In a hmeopathic hospital the doctors need a recognizable high level homeopathy designation, not a MD which is directly, and only, related to allopathy.
Those who take a particular course, usually claim it is good, else they are denigrating their own training that they paid for. It is hardly an objective opinion:-)
The Faculty of Homeopathy says on their website, about what their course offers:
"Doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, podiatrists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, chiropractors and vets will continue to see patients in their usual day to day practice and will be able to offer homeopathy alongside their usual treatment methods."
That most definitely is NOT my idea of an appropriate goal for the training of a homeopath!
I do NOT want a homeopath whose training was directly planned to be a pimple on the face of their allopathic practice.
Not relevant to the problem that UK is using Faculty of Homeopathy as an oficial recognition method of what a pmple homeopathy is for allopathy - clearly to add Euros to their income, not to use homeopathy becasue of what it is - what a crock!
Sorry but that is backwatds.
It is just wrong to put the allopaths in charge of what is or is not okay in their skewed opinion. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!
The result is exactly what the Faculty of Homeopahty offers. Total junk.
Not with Faculty of Homeopahty in charge. The GOAL - stated clearly - is to "be able to offer homeopathy alongside their USUAL ALLOPATHY.
WIth that as the course gial, nobody id aiming for true homeopahty, if they even have a clue what it is.
REAL homeopaths with a medical degree are those whof ound out the hard way that homeopahty works. THEY changed to homeopahty for PILOSOPHICAL reasons - none of which matter to the Faculty ogf Homeopahty - who h holds that Allopath is the USUAL philosophy AFTER the homeopathy course.
I attended vet school and medical school myself, also graduate school - I just did not study surgery and have no medical license. SO I am qualified to teach it, not pracrtice it, legally speaking. But I definitely use my medical knowledge all the time in homeopathy.
Just yesterday that was what I used to figure out that a cat diagnosed with FIP, actually has a Beta hemoytic streptococcal meningitis, (Streptococcus canis by a process of elimination on known symptoms of the differential diagnosis list I made) to explain his inability to walk properly, his painful spine, itching ear/head and photophobia and debility. The bacteria is able to compromise the blood brain barrier and would have entered via a middle ear infection.
I challenge a homeopath without medical training to figure that one out.
But MY emphasis in medical training is homepathy, not allopathy, and I see myslef as a homeopath as myu THINKING is homeopathic - medical knowledge is for how better to understand the maintaining cause, the pathology and damage it does etc, in an animal who can not even describe how he feels.
But NOT via the Faculty of Homeopathy paradigm!
And NOT by allopaths leading the way as to what constitutes what homeopahty is be used how!
Those are NOT homeopaths, who have Faculty of Homepathy credentials. They teach exactly the opposite of the correct approach.
One needs to learn to think as a homepath.
THAT has to be the goal of any valid homeopahty training.
Nothing less will do.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Re: Allowing GPs to prescribe Homeopathic remedies.
Irene,
One needs to learn to think, feel and sense homeopathy,
so one can live homeopathy.
One should say: I am homeopathy instead of a therapeutic homeopath.
Nothing less will do.
Thinking alone is not enough!!
Aham
Spirit in action
Am 17.11.2015 20:24, schrieb Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]:
One needs to learn to think, feel and sense homeopathy,
so one can live homeopathy.
One should say: I am homeopathy instead of a therapeutic homeopath.
Nothing less will do.
Thinking alone is not enough!!
Aham
Spirit in action
Am 17.11.2015 20:24, schrieb Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]: