Training (Was Qualifications)

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Shannon, I think if you have a good rapport with your patient and make it firmly clear (just as a legal precuation) that this is NOT a "medical" procedure (the magic word), there will probably not be any problems. The risk is someone saying you were practicing medicine, at which point mass hysteria is, unfortunately, able to take over. Rosemary

[Julian Winston]

At 6:36 PM -0700 10/20/04, Rosemary C Hyde PhD wrote:

There are other issues involved as well.
TOUCHING a patient can be problematic-- even for docs. I know that
most docs, if doing a physical exam, will ask someone else to be in
the room to make sure there is no impropriety.
A number of years ago, a lay homeopath in FLA was locked up for 5
years for doing a pelvic exam on a female client.

You can not be too careful.

JW

[Ellen Madono]

Dear Rosemary,
If you took out a stethoscope and used it and explained that you are not a physician and are only doing the physical exam to get a more full picture of the patient, not to do a medical diagnosis would you be accused of practicing medicine? If someone's inner ear is inflamed, I would like to know the color of the inflamation, is there crusting? What does the oozing stuff look like? if it is there, etc. Is that a physical examination? The patient will not tell you and that kind of information will not come in the doctor's report (Second hand generally). I think if I did a physical exam, I definitely would have the patient sign a written paper explaining that I am not a physician. Dr. Rozenczwaj makes a diagnosis, I would just send the patient back to the doctor if I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.
Blessings,
Ellen Madono

[d_barbara_hamilton]

Hi Ellen, all,

I guess the more each of us posts our own experiences and thoughts, the
better ... so with that in mind...

As litigation is fast becoming a big issue in society generally, and whilst
we are all urged to be under 'insurance' nowadays, I sympathise with Dr.
R's position as he is potentially in a more serious "I'll sue your ass!"
situation than any Homeopath without a Doctor qualification.

However, if we get out stethescopes and bp monitors, then we are not
just 'observing' surely ? I try to make it clear to all my px that I don't 'do'
diagnosis - that's not my job. If I suspect something, or see a clear
pathology that needs to be recorded on a patient's records (as this is just
as important, so the medical profession cannot be given the opporutnity
to criticise us for denying the px options), then I advise them to go and
'get a diagnosis', blood test, etc., etc.

My training may cover pathology, but even doctors have trouble
spotting meningitis, etc., and I feel it is not in the best interests of
homeopathy if I *think * I can don a white coat or lead the px to believe I
have more knowledge than I have. I can see the extreme usefulness of the
stethescopes and bp checks, and some colleges train students in the use
of them, but personally I would want this carried out by a professional
and for their medical record to be updated at all times.

If one has medical qualifications (former nurse, etc.) then I'm sure it is a
wonderful help - BUT - it always has the downside of leaving one open
to attack. I prefer to stay 'hands off' because I believe that is important
in what often amounts to not just homeopathy, but a counselling role.
Boundary issues are as important to homepaths as they are to patients,
and I personally just feel that I should leave the px with the impression
that consulting me is an 'alternative' BUT complementary to their existing
health-care arrangements. Doctor-dependency is also a big issue in
society, and one I don't wish to encourage either, so I prefer the role of
px empowerment whilst I work with them.

Look forward to hearing more 'two-penny-worths' !

Best wishes, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono"
wrote:
not a physician and are only doing the physical exam to get a more full
picture of the patient, not to do a medical diagnosis would you be
accused of practicing medicine? If someone's inner ear is inflamed, I
would like to know the color of the inflamation, is there crusting? What
does the oozing stuff look like? if it is there, etc. Is that a physical
examination? The patient will not tell you and that kind of information
will not come in the doctor's report (Second hand generally). I think if I
did a physical exam, I definitely would have the patient sign a written
paper explaining that I am not a physician. Dr. Rozenczwaj makes a
diagnosis, I would just send the patient back to the doctor if I felt
uncomfortable with what I saw.
physicians, at least in the US, and that is that doing a physical exam is
one aspect of "practicing medicine." Not only is it illegal for non-MDs
to do physical exams, we obviously aren't trained for it. So we do need
to rely on medical information from the patients' allopathic physicians,
and we need to be prepared to tell our patients when it would be a good
idea for them to get allopathic data if they haven't already, just as a
precaution in situations where we might encounter legal liability if they
have not seen a licensed physician. It does take years of training and
practice to acquire the level of prowess in physical diagnosis that Dr R
explained to us in his sample case. Talent, and interest, too. Many MDs
haven't acquired that level of skill -- it would be good if they had!!
where one emphatically needs to send the patient back to the allopaths, if
a potential emergency is brewing, even if the allopaths haven't seen that.
And, as Joy says, it makes sense also to treat them homeopathically on
an emergency basis, even if we can't afford to wait a long time for
homeopathic treatment to demonstrate whether it's going to work.
(although I believe that the more we know the better we can help our
patients as homeopaths). We do need to have a good sense of what's a
potential emergency so that a patient who comes to us gets
life-preserving treatment, wherever it comes from.
allopaths are the mortal enemies of homeopaths -- that allopathy is good
for nothing and homeopathy the total answer for everything. I
considered that viewpoint prejudiced and short-sighted. I see it rather
that we have our areas of strength and they have theirs, and practitioners
of both schools can work together to help a patient achieve and maintain
a better state of health. (That doesn't mean it always happens that way
by a long shot, but it's possible and desirable.).
trained
pretending to be
some
that I
than the
plain
really
what
probably
homeopathy is
need to
that needs
know
affinity to, say,
looking
but
*I*
there's
the
ourselves!!!!)

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono"
wrote:
not a physician and are only doing the physical exam to get a more full
picture of the patient, not to do a medical diagnosis would you be
accused of practicing medicine? If someone's inner ear is inflamed, I
would like to know the color of the inflamation, is there crusting? What
does the oozing stuff look like? if it is there, etc. Is that a physical
examination? The patient will not tell you and that kind of information
will not come in the doctor's report (Second hand generally). I think if I
did a physical exam, I definitely would have the patient sign a written
paper explaining that I am not a physician. Dr. Rozenczwaj makes a
diagnosis, I would just send the patient back to the doctor if I felt
uncomfortable with what I saw.
physicians, at least in the US, and that is that doing a physical exam is
one aspect of "practicing medicine." Not only is it illegal for non-MDs
to do physical exams, we obviously aren't trained for it. So we do need
to rely on medical information from the patients' allopathic physicians,
and we need to be prepared to tell our patients when it would be a good
idea for them to get allopathic data if they haven't already, just as a
precaution in situations where we might encounter legal liability if they
have not seen a licensed physician. It does take years of training and
practice to acquire the level of prowess in physical diagnosis that Dr R
explained to us in his sample case. Talent, and interest, too. Many MDs
haven't acquired that level of skill -- it would be good if they had!!
where one emphatically needs to send the patient back to the allopaths, if
a potential emergency is brewing, even if the allopaths haven't seen that.
And, as Joy says, it makes sense also to treat them homeopathically on
an emergency basis, even if we can't afford to wait a long time for
homeopathic treatment to demonstrate whether it's going to work.
(although I believe that the more we know the better we can help our
patients as homeopaths). We do need to have a good sense of what's a
potential emergency so that a patient who comes to us gets
life-preserving treatment, wherever it comes from.
allopaths are the mortal enemies of homeopaths -- that allopathy is good
for nothing and homeopathy the total answer for everything. I
considered that viewpoint prejudiced and short-sighted. I see it rather
that we have our areas of strength and they have theirs, and practitioners
of both schools can work together to help a patient achieve and maintain
a better state of health. (That doesn't mean it always happens that way
by a long shot, but it's possible and desirable.).
trained
pretending to be
some
that I
than the
plain
really
what
probably
homeopathy is
need to
that needs
know
affinity to, say,
looking
but
*I*
there's
the
ourselves!!!!)
Homoeopathy and
regarding the
read or
and/or email
remains
individual
punitive
with the
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the information
contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered
which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose.
The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no
event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any
direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages
whatsoever and howsoever caused.
the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@y... to receive a single daily
digest.
Service.
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the information
contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered
which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose.
The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no
event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any
direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages
whatsoever and howsoever caused.
the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@y... to receive a single daily
digest.
Service.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Living in New Zealand, it would be very difficult for me to be sued:

- I am NOT registered as a conventional MD any more

- I am fully registered, chartered and insured for each and every one of my
alternative practices, and that allows me by law to use whatever is needed
to practice, within vague and wide limits: e.g. I cannot theoretically take
blood samples myself, but I can and do send to the lab for tests........

That is because we do practice under common British law, where the only
limitation is that you cannot claim you are someone you clearly are not:
therefore, it is clearly mentioned in my waiting room that I am NOT
registered to practice conventional medicine in NZ, and that covers it. I
have the legal right to use the title Dr. (confirmed in writing by our
Medical Council) because I have the paperwork to prove it, period.

If and when the practice of homeopathy becomes a legally registered
profession, the situation will be the same as long as the homeopath (or
whatever other profession) is registered with the legal body. This is
already the case with Osteopaths in NZ, will soon be with Acupuncturists,
but the government does not seem to be interested very much in regulating
homeopathy as it acknowledges we are very low risk ...................
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"