You are completely out of your mind..............
A patient/client comes in for a consultation; it is the work of taking the case, examining the patient, gathering the information, processing everything to make a diagnosis (however anyone interprets that term), using all that information to decide what the appropriate way of taking care of the patient is, then only deciding on a remedy/herb/supplement/manipulation/anything else, that is subject to the fee.
It has nothing to do with the definition of homeopathy.
It is called "the duty of care" to which every practitioner is bound: using the best of our knowledge and abilities to take care of the patient. That work entitles the practitioner to his consultation fee. Nothing to do with whatever the practitioner uses as a therapeutic method; it is a totally different discussion.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
Why would anyone charge for doing something that they haven't done, because it's not part of their practice? Oh John, the "rabbit hole" comment does come to mind again...
Now there are, of course, people who call themselves homeopaths--and are so called by their patients--who use combination remedies of various sorts. E.g. Homotoxicology, homeotherapeutics--or shall we exclude those from the heading of "combo", since they are in fact formulated by different criteria, for different functions and different effects? The first "homeopath" I saw--years before I had heard anything of "classical homeopathy" and begun my "real" journey into it--was an EAV prescriber. Dang, it's that old "definition" thing again...
So no, it's not at all relevant to the question.
Now there are, of course, people who call themselves homeopaths--and are so called by their patients--who use combination remedies of various sorts. E.g. Homotoxicology, homeotherapeutics--or shall we exclude those from the heading of "combo", since they are in fact formulated by different criteria, for different functions and different effects? The first "homeopath" I saw--years before I had heard anything of "classical homeopathy" and begun my "real" journey into it--was an EAV prescriber. Dang, it's that old "definition" thing again...
So no, it's not at all relevant to the question.
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
You are completely out of your mind..............
Quite possibly. If not, I'm sure I'm well on the way!
A patient/client comes in for a consultation; it is the work of taking the case, examining the patient, gathering the information, processing everything to make a diagnosis (however anyone interprets that term), using all that information to decide what the appropriate way of taking care of the patient is, then only deciding on a remedy/herb/supplement/manipulation/anything else, that is subject to the fee.
It has nothing to do with the definition of homeopathy.
It is called "the duty of care" to which every practitioner is bound: using the best of our knowledge and abilities to take care of the patient. That work entitles the practitioner to his consultation fee. Nothing to do with whatever the practitioner uses as a therapeutic method; it is a totally different discussion.
Interesting reaction to my interpretation of your previous answer. This, I take it, is your justification for your answer. I didn't need it, but appreciate knowing your position; thanks. I actually intended the question to provoke little more than a prick of the conscience of those who pretend to offer one service but deliver another.
In your own case, since you're always so candid about your own methods on this list, I didn't imagine that the picture of pretending to make a definite offer to the patient of homoeopathic treatment fitted you at all. It's always seemed to me that you and at least one other medically qualified practitioner on this list, both fairly serious fellows who appear to understand homoeopathy well, understandably reserve the freedom to practise in any way in which a medically qualified practitioner may and to suggest whatever means comes to mind as best.
In that, I see no overt deceit. And you seem, above, to have confirmed that picture. I don't understand, therefore, why you also seem to think that the question I put applies to you at all. Nevertheless, I accept that you feel strongly about the suggestion that the kind of deceit the question is directed at is ethically questionable. And if that's so, then please feel free to challenge the suggestion relevantly.
Cheers --
John
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
Quite possibly. If not, I'm sure I'm well on the way!
A patient/client comes in for a consultation; it is the work of taking the case, examining the patient, gathering the information, processing everything to make a diagnosis (however anyone interprets that term), using all that information to decide what the appropriate way of taking care of the patient is, then only deciding on a remedy/herb/supplement/manipulation/anything else, that is subject to the fee.
It has nothing to do with the definition of homeopathy.
It is called "the duty of care" to which every practitioner is bound: using the best of our knowledge and abilities to take care of the patient. That work entitles the practitioner to his consultation fee. Nothing to do with whatever the practitioner uses as a therapeutic method; it is a totally different discussion.
Interesting reaction to my interpretation of your previous answer. This, I take it, is your justification for your answer. I didn't need it, but appreciate knowing your position; thanks. I actually intended the question to provoke little more than a prick of the conscience of those who pretend to offer one service but deliver another.
In your own case, since you're always so candid about your own methods on this list, I didn't imagine that the picture of pretending to make a definite offer to the patient of homoeopathic treatment fitted you at all. It's always seemed to me that you and at least one other medically qualified practitioner on this list, both fairly serious fellows who appear to understand homoeopathy well, understandably reserve the freedom to practise in any way in which a medically qualified practitioner may and to suggest whatever means comes to mind as best.
In that, I see no overt deceit. And you seem, above, to have confirmed that picture. I don't understand, therefore, why you also seem to think that the question I put applies to you at all. Nevertheless, I accept that you feel strongly about the suggestion that the kind of deceit the question is directed at is ethically questionable. And if that's so, then please feel free to challenge the suggestion relevantly.
Cheers --
John
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
Yeah, gosh darn and dang it, it's that old itch to insist that anything goes. Well, Shannon, anything does not go. Did you eventually find any of the dictionaries I referred you to about four years ago?
You ask why anyone would charge for doing something that they haven't done. It's such an excellent question that I asked it myself, in a slightly different way, at the very start of this thread: would they, given that they had done something different (and therefore left unfulfilled their implicit promise), refuse to accept payment?
So far, we have two effective "No" replies as I understand them, though the relevance of one of them is in doubt. Let's see whether any of the really keen polypharmacists is willing to reply at all.
Cheers --
John
You ask why anyone would charge for doing something that they haven't done. It's such an excellent question that I asked it myself, in a slightly different way, at the very start of this thread: would they, given that they had done something different (and therefore left unfulfilled their implicit promise), refuse to accept payment?
So far, we have two effective "No" replies as I understand them, though the relevance of one of them is in doubt. Let's see whether any of the really keen polypharmacists is willing to reply at all.
Cheers --
John
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
Whether it does or does not apply to me is not relevant.
You are mixing (making a combo!!!) a business practice (the fee charged for a consultation) with the way someone practices, whatever that is.
That is not right.
That is why I reacted.
Did you pay attention that I did not get involved in the whole combo thread?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
You are mixing (making a combo!!!) a business practice (the fee charged for a consultation) with the way someone practices, whatever that is.
That is not right.
That is why I reacted.
Did you pay attention that I did not get involved in the whole combo thread?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
Hi, Dr J. --
Yes, I'm aware that you didn't get involved in this discussion. But I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My intent in raising the ethical question is to discuss neither the practice of charging a fee for a consultation nor the appropriateness of a particular method of medical practice.
My intent is to raise the matter of misrepresentation. What a patient may expect by way of the kind of medical practice to which he or she has committed payment by making an appointment and walking through the door may be determined simply by a practitioner's identifying himself as a homoeopath, one whose practice a patient may rely upon to be homoeopathic! A patient relies upon that due to the commitment inherent in a practitioner's advertising him- or herself as a homoeopath: a commitment to using, in some form, the homoeopathic method.
I hope you'd agree that misrepresentation of what the patient's nontrivial commitment of money will get him or her is also nontrivial.
As we've agreed, though, the question doesn't seem to be relevant to your practice. Nor, of course, is it relevant to that of any other practitioner who makes clear that there is no such commitment.
Kind regards,
John
Whether it does or does not apply to me is not relevant.
You are mixing (making a combo!!!) a business practice (the fee charged for a consultation) with the way someone practices, whatever that is.
That is not right.
That is why I reacted.
Did you pay attention that I did not get involved in the whole combo thread?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
Yes, I'm aware that you didn't get involved in this discussion. But I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My intent in raising the ethical question is to discuss neither the practice of charging a fee for a consultation nor the appropriateness of a particular method of medical practice.
My intent is to raise the matter of misrepresentation. What a patient may expect by way of the kind of medical practice to which he or she has committed payment by making an appointment and walking through the door may be determined simply by a practitioner's identifying himself as a homoeopath, one whose practice a patient may rely upon to be homoeopathic! A patient relies upon that due to the commitment inherent in a practitioner's advertising him- or herself as a homoeopath: a commitment to using, in some form, the homoeopathic method.
I hope you'd agree that misrepresentation of what the patient's nontrivial commitment of money will get him or her is also nontrivial.
As we've agreed, though, the question doesn't seem to be relevant to your practice. Nor, of course, is it relevant to that of any other practitioner who makes clear that there is no such commitment.
Kind regards,
John
Whether it does or does not apply to me is not relevant.
You are mixing (making a combo!!!) a business practice (the fee charged for a consultation) with the way someone practices, whatever that is.
That is not right.
That is why I reacted.
Did you pay attention that I did not get involved in the whole combo thread?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
OK.
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
Good thoughts. But it seems to me that every patient who intends to attend a psychiatrist and has heard of Jungian and Freudian psychiatrists will know absolutely before making the appointment which sort this psychiatrist is. It would be unheard of, I suspect, for somebody to practise Jungian psychiatry on the patient who'd relied on the practitioner's self-description as Freudian.
So I don't think the psychiatric one is a terribly apt analogy.
Perhaps the point here is that I'm not discussing what beliefs homoeopaths (or psychiatrists) comfort themselves with.
To make the point unmistakeable: let us say that I let it be generally known that I am a homoeopathic practitioner (nothing else); and let us say that I believe that chanting in alphabetical order the names of all the substances indexed in Kent's Repertory till the patient's head begins to droop will indicate the patient's muscular response to the "right" medicine for her. Let us say that I prescribe upon that basis in the sincere belief that this is homoeopathic practice.
Would you suggest that the sincerity of my belief overrides its inaccuracy in justifying my self-description and consequently my acceptance of a fee as a homoeopath?
If you think that this is debatable, then simply take an example in which the sincere belief is more extreme. If I sincerely believe that when you come to see me in my guise of homoeopath, several of the letters in your homoeopathic remedy will be spelt out in the licence plate of your car or in the numerology of your birthdate or your telephone number, will you be satisfied in handing over your hard-earned cash on the basis of my sincere belief that this is a homoeopathic methodology?
You can see, can't you, that my belief in the role of practitioner can't be relevant. What are relevant are the information I give out and its reasonable interpretation according to ordinary meaning.
At this point, Shannon will jump back in and claim that the ordinary meaning of "homoeopathy" now includes anything with that word stuck to it. But that's bunk. Mercenary traders do not determine what any fool can learn by picking up the nearest dictionary.
Cheers --
John
OK.
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
So I don't think the psychiatric one is a terribly apt analogy.
Perhaps the point here is that I'm not discussing what beliefs homoeopaths (or psychiatrists) comfort themselves with.
To make the point unmistakeable: let us say that I let it be generally known that I am a homoeopathic practitioner (nothing else); and let us say that I believe that chanting in alphabetical order the names of all the substances indexed in Kent's Repertory till the patient's head begins to droop will indicate the patient's muscular response to the "right" medicine for her. Let us say that I prescribe upon that basis in the sincere belief that this is homoeopathic practice.
Would you suggest that the sincerity of my belief overrides its inaccuracy in justifying my self-description and consequently my acceptance of a fee as a homoeopath?
If you think that this is debatable, then simply take an example in which the sincere belief is more extreme. If I sincerely believe that when you come to see me in my guise of homoeopath, several of the letters in your homoeopathic remedy will be spelt out in the licence plate of your car or in the numerology of your birthdate or your telephone number, will you be satisfied in handing over your hard-earned cash on the basis of my sincere belief that this is a homoeopathic methodology?
You can see, can't you, that my belief in the role of practitioner can't be relevant. What are relevant are the information I give out and its reasonable interpretation according to ordinary meaning.
At this point, Shannon will jump back in and claim that the ordinary meaning of "homoeopathy" now includes anything with that word stuck to it. But that's bunk. Mercenary traders do not determine what any fool can learn by picking up the nearest dictionary.
Cheers --
John
OK.
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
All they have to do is read the ORGANON and see that they have been taught wrong.
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: 06 December 2010 21:46
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: "combo meds'; "combo rmeds"; "SPAM -- combo meds"]
OK.
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: 06 December 2010 21:46
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: "combo meds'; "combo rmeds"; "SPAM -- combo meds"]
OK.
But let me push that a little further, just because I feel like bickering this morning......
You are talking about misrepresentation. What about the practitioners who do feel and genuinely believe, and have been trained that way, that using combos is in fact "pure" homeopathy?
Then it is not misrepresentation......it become similar to the fight between Freudians and Jungian psychiatrists, each sect claiming than the other is sheer nonsense.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]
True, but the dictionary entry is shorter, clearer, and more accessible, and takes a lot less time to read. 
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .