Freedom of choice

[muthu kumar]

It is this kind of practice nirvana that exists in India. Not only
can anyone call oneself a doctor ( despite laws against it) but one
can also give and get any kind of medicine and face no consequences.

A bunch of homeopaths got arrested at one time for practising
allopathy under the name of homeopathy- and this was one of the
reasons that homeopathic injections got banned- since it was getting
difficult to differentiate among practitioners).

But this is a rare occurrence. Usually anyone can get away with
anything. 20 years back the electrician of our medical college was
the chief doctor in his village. He would get the medicines from the
free government dispensary for very little money and practice in the
village with that. People would know he is working at the "big
hospital" but would not know what he was there.

And of course there were all kinds of charlatans selling all kinds
of substances - steroids in ayurvedic medicines ( I know of a
homeopathic doctor who was getting a "herbal" preparation for his
daughter's asthma- she kept on putting weight on it and then it
turned out the medicine had frank steroids mixed into it - and the
gullible public with their freedom of choice were using it with no
kind of control.

May be there should be some kind of control and who decides what?

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers
wrote:
anyway)
for
amendment in
basic
public
methods
that
longer
have to
the
of
competition)
definition by
financial
a
there is
really
constitutional
in the
offers
wants -
that's a
to be
USA
Homeopath.)

[Tanya Marquette]

freedom of choice over what form of health care one choses
is different from deception by practitioners.
the freedom of access health bills that have been proposed
in the usa always state things like:
practitioner declares what (s)he does
practitioner's training
public's free choice to chose what kind of healing protocol
one choses
having freedom of choice does not negate honesty and guidelines
can be established to ensure that people have access to that kind
of honesty.
tanya

[muthu kumar]

To quote Spiderman's uncle - "With great power comes great
responsibility"
If alternative medicines want people to have freedom of choice it
comes down to each such choice of treatment modality to make sure
that there are some standards and also a way of convincing that
these are not injurious to the public. I would say that this still
comes down to showing what and who they are. But even otherwise for
any government this is a question that needs to be clarified if it
does not want to find itself in the same state as what is happening
in UK.
If an alternative medicine is given a free rein scientific
community that is asserting itself would question the efficiency of
the government that allows all unproven medicines to proliferate. If
it is not given free rein, the alternative medicine community will
be up in arms asking for freedom of choice.

There is nothing as complete freedom of choice. There is always a
responsibility in either side - for the practitioner to declare what
he/she does and that to be recognized by a recognized body.

If someone says he/she is practising Gemmo-homeopathy ( whatever it
is ) who is to say if it is effective or not or can be used for a
child's asthma? If Gemmo-homeopathy did not work and the child goes
to Status - who is to blame? Will the government at that time be
questioned or not why such a medicine was allowed to exist - at
least on what basis? WHAT is the basis? The question will be can a
parent decide that his/ her child will benefit from Gemmo-homeopathy?

I still think there is a duty for an elected government to decide on
the merits and demerits of any system that prevails in the land and
then approve them. Of the approved roster of different therapies,
then the patient has a freedom of choice.

Personally I think even this will be a bitter thing for most
alternative medicines because a) most of them are not logical or
lack cohesive structure b) most of them lack integrity ( or at least
the practitioners do - practising a hodge-podge of things claiming
that they are exerting a freedom of choice for the benefit of the
patient ( which lots of times means that they are groping in the
dark ) c) frankly a lot of them cannot stand close scrutiny.

Going thru some review process is the only way to make sure that
whatever medicinal modalities are practiced get some respect (
because they have been vetted by some independent body) and the
patients also survive after treatment and are not fleeced by the
anaconda-oil-salesmen....

True freedom is the one that comes with good controls -
one
consequences.
getting
the
the
fight
supercedes
for
no
practice
with
strep
it."

[Tanya Marquette]

i still don't know where you are located but
realize that your background and location has
an impact on your sense of reality. (i don't
say this as a criticism).
here in the usa, scientific 'proof' has little to
do with the issue. allopathic medicine proves this
daily with all the pushing of drugs into the market
without meaningful research or disclosure of some
serious side effects. 40,000 people have died from
vioxx, and this is a minimum number. other meds are
causing just as many deaths and creating debilitating
chronic conditions. exposure of such information has
done nothing to create protections for the public.
the fda is bought by the pharmaceutical companies as
are many members on congress. the pharmaceutical
industry has one of the biggest political lobbies.
that is where the fight is. getting into defensive,
knee-jerk reactions to attacks is not useful to our
cause. the freedom health access bill in new york state
fell apart because the homeopathic community was afraid
to expose itself due to paranoia, complacency, and
individualism--not poor practice.
tanya

[Irene de Villiers]

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

Choice of health care is not power, it's a basic right.
It's got nothingto do with alternative medicine.
People have a right to choose their health care - and it's not up to
"alternatibe health" or "allopathic health" to dictate whether they may
or may not do so.

As with any other choice - the individual has the right and
responsibility of deciding what health care they want. They choose
clothes to wear, hairstyle to wear, soap to use, religion to believe in,
and health care choice is just as basic.

If I think health improves by bungee jumping - that's nobody else's
business.
If I do not want chemotherapy it's also nobody else's business.

it

Well it's an open market. If they do not have good standards they will
get a poor reputation and go out of business.
Same with a church - it has to serve its members or they will go elsewhere.

and also a way of convincing that

No need.
It's not the public that's getting the right to choose -it's the
individual. Each individual thus decides what's injurious to them.
There's no "good for the public" concept when the right belongs to the
individual.
We do not decide what religion is "right for the public" - same idea
with health- it's an individual decision - that's the whole point.

Nobody else has the right to decide what's injurious to me!!!!

If something is *intentionally* injurious - there are already laws and
liability aspects covering that - so it's a non-issue in terms of
setting up the basic right of an individual to choose their health care
approach/es and make their own health care decisions.
It's the right of the individual to decide if they know enough and want
to choose it.
It's not the government's choice - it's not your choice or my choice or
some allopath's choice.
Or it should not be:-)
Similarly - as with religion - we choose the religion of our children
and our pets while they are in out care - and so it should be in health
care - the guardian decides.

or can be used for a

Well - when allopathy does not work (which is most of the time) they are
not held to blame.
Same with any other health profession.
The choice is made by the individual - the practitioner (allo0pathic or
otherwise) states risks and credentials.
Client decides what to do.
Is the government questioned on whether a religion is allowed to exist?
No - only if it is causing mass suicide or some such extreme effect.
Why do you think the "government" should choose whether you are to
undergo surgery, chemotherapy or a dozen vaccinations? Why should the
government decide anything for you about your health????

- at

Individual human right to control one's own body.
That is the only basis that is relevant and needed.
To do anything less smacks of Hitlerism. He was good at doing things to
people that they did not want in the supposed name of health. I see the
American system as not significantly different in principle. They are
controlling who does what to human beings' bodies, and giving the owners
of the bodies no say in the matter.
How is that ever justifiable?
How is that ever better then us each deciding for oursleves what can be
done to us?

The question will be can a

As it should be - the parent is there to look after the child by natural
laws and manmade laws.
It's not the governmnet's job to raise children.
Absolutely not! They are not qualified to say boo about it.
ONLY the individual system and its well trained members can choose a
standard they wish to recommend as minimal for that system. Nobody else
is qualified.

in the land and

Approve?
Oh no - It is not for the govt to "approve" of any system. It is the
individual's RIGHT to decide if the system is right for them.
A group of homeopaths can choose a level they recommend - as allopaths
do - an Md or ARNP or whatevr depending onm teh state definitiopn of
"physician".
That is not a govt decision- the allopaths decide what constitutes "MD",
not the govt.
Likewise homeopaths could choose a recommended competence to recommend.
It's NOT a govt function - govt's job is to govern - not stick noses in
health care, religion and other areas that pertain to individual rights.
Nothing wrong with that.
It is still for the patient to choose this kind of practitioner - or
someone else - it is not for the govt to do it.

( which lots of times means that they are groping in the
And soon their reputation will sink them like a boat with holes in it.
Not true.
A good practitioner builds a good reputation.....
And so it should be.
There's plenty of internet ability to let all and sundry know if there
is a fly by night person.
Depends what you call good controls - they are not what you describe:
True freedom has laws against intentional ill-doing, and criminal
irresponsibility. They do not say what system may or may not be used.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[muthu kumar]

Does freedom of choice in health care exist in any state in US? How
is the situation in these states?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:
for
happening
of
If
what
it
goes
homeopathy?
on
and
least
only
was
kinds
his
the
no
it
the
standard
of
would
and
system
needs
By

[Tanya Marquette]

there are 4 states that have passed freedom health access bills.
the format is pretty much the same in all states.
the bill says that people have the right to chose whomever they
wish for health care.
the health care provider needs to follow a proscribed ethics standard
which includes things like stating what they do, their training, pts
sign a release statement acknowledging the practitioner may not be
licensed in the state.
the most significant guideline is that they
may/must not discourage pts from seeing allopathic practitioners.
would that standard be applied to allopaths as well.
back in the 1980's there was a 10 yr long law suit by chiropractors
against three medical groups: ama, asa & ?? (cant recall). after
a lengthy battle, the chiropractors were given the right to practice
without harrassment by the allopaths and the allopaths were ordered
to not say or do disparaging things against the chiropractors.
well, i can assure you that injunction against badmouthing chiros is
not practiced as evidenced by the way i was treated when i tried to
have the most severe nerve pain diagnosed in 2001. i had lyme which
affected the nerves in my back and ultimately wound up with a severe
attack of bell's palsey covering the entire right side of my face. i
received derisive condescension when i openly stated that i had seen
a chiropractor for the pain which i thought was part of my typical
body problems.
but going back to your original question, in these 4 states all lay
practitioners can set up practice legally. these bills essentially
give umbrella coverage to all holistic protocols. i have not heard of
any problems. in my state, ny, the holistic practitioners could not
get their act together on this and as have previously written, the
homeopaths were too complacent and/or paranoid to come out to lobby.
tanya

[muthu kumar]

Thanks

What 4 states are these?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:
standard
pts
practice
is
to
which
severe
face. i
seen
heard of
not
lobby.
How
it
sure
still
it
proliferate.
will
a
a
a
decide
therapies,
claiming
the
kind
but
the
with
from
in
it
with
what?

the
practice
course)
would
Currently
it
feathered -
doing

[Tanya Marquette]

minnesota, rhode island, california.
i thought there was a fourth state with a successful bill
but can't find it. vermone, s.carolina and ny had bills in
the works. ny is now defunct--at least for the moment.
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

arizona?