Homeopathy, Economics, and Government
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:20 am
Homeopathy, Economics, and Government
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/johnston1.html
Homeopathy, Economics, and Government
by Linda Johnston, MD, DHt
The history of the regulation of alternative medical therapies,
particularly Homeopathy, is extremely interesting and sheds a great deal
of light on the current regulatory environment. In this short review of
that history, it can be seen that the current attempts at regulation
have roots as far back as 200 years ago.
The early 1800’s was a time of great transition in medicine. Whereas
the standard, allopathic form of treatment was dominant at the turn of
that century, that was not to last. The two most popular alternatives
to the orthodox practice were herbal medicine and Homeopathy.
By the time Homeopathy was introduced to America in
1825, herbal medicine was already well established.
Equally well established was the allopathic doctors’ animosity towards
any competition. The rise of Homeopathy particularly coincided with a
dramatic decline in the prestige of allopathic medicine and its
methods. There was a general and pervasive disdain and mistrust of
allopathic medicine. One author concluded that "to many people the
interests of the medical profession as a whole were opposed to the best
interests of society."
Within 15 years of being introduced to America, Homeopathy was offering
serious competition to allopathic medicine and by 1860, Homeopathy was
flourishing with many doctors available in every state. The biggest
asset to the spread of Homeopathy was the home prescriber, or unlicensed
lay practitioner. America of the 1800’s was predominantly rural and
most areas had no physician close at hand.
Mothers treating their children’s problems easily and inexpensively
caused the news of Homeopathy to spread like a brush fire throughout the
mid-west and eastern seaboard. While political battles and turf wars
raged between the doctors, many people successfully treated typhoid,
cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with
their Homeopathic remedies and without doctors.
Even the press of the day were favorable to Homeopathy and its articles
often reflected the general public’s contempt for allopathic medicine.
One such article condemned "the rigidly anti-innovative attitude which
the Old School doctors have so consistently maintained for centuries"
and recommended that there be free and open competition between the two
systems, "where the public will act as umpires, deciding after a careful
perusal of the undertakers bills on either side."
As a consequence, extreme hatred and economic jealousy was aroused in
the allopaths. These economic concerns were well documented. One
review wrote of Homeopathy, "quackery .... by fraud and deception, too
frequently triumphs and grows rich, where wiser and better men scarcely
escape starvation." In 1846, The New York Journal of Medicine stated,
"quackery occasions a large pecuniary loss to us."
The public was quite willing to pay high fees for Homeopathy, much to
the consternation of the economically struggling allopaths. Most
Homeopaths had higher incomes than their allopathic counterparts, having
busy, thriving practices in the same areas where allopaths couldn’t earn
enough to live. The annual income for an allopath in 1871 averaged
$1000, whereas a Homeopath’s averaged $4000.
The allopaths blamed the public for the situation, contemptuously
regarding them as ignorant, undiscriminating and easily deceived,
clearly needing to be protected from their own perverse ignorance. It
never occurred to the allopathic doctors that the public, rather than
being ignorant of orthodox medicine, were very familiar with it and
consequently didn’t like it.
If you think doctors have outgrown this attitude from
1800, I will refer you to the recent article in the prestigious
allopathic journal The New England Journal of Medicine. After reviewing
the habits of a large cohort of patients, it was concluded that one
third of Americans use some method of non-conventional medical treatment
and pay more out of their own pocket to do so than the combined money
spent on all primary care allopathic office visits. As a result of this
startling finding, the authors did not suggest further investigation as
to why such a large number of patients prefer non-traditional treatment,
nor was it suggested that these treatments must have something valuable
to offer. Instead, in a move reminiscent of attitudes over 150 years
old, the authors advised that doctors inquire if their patients are
using some form of non-conventional therapy so that they can better
bring these errant patients back to conventional treatment.
The brunt of the blame for declining allopathic fortunes was laid at the
door of the Homeopaths. The allopaths had concern about the growing
competition from Homeopathy, stated as "quackery in the profession."
They felt the apparently declining standards of medical education was
the cause of physicians converting to Homeopathy and these ideas were
the prime motives in the founding of the American Medical Association in
1847. It is interesting to note that the professional organization for
Homeopathy equivalent to the AMA, the American Institute of Homeopathy,
was founded earlier in 1844, making it the oldest professional medical
organization.
Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting,
restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed
in the early
1800’s to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths
from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every
case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely
unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years.
Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical
societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire
for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves
the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to
licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine
without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the
power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were
also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens.
Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in
the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical
society membership and representation in the AMA required that these
societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths. After 1847, all
state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition,
professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between
allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between
the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the
AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action
for something that was totally legal.
All this speaks of the restraint of trade. All professions have used
laws, licensing, legislation, unions and guilds to protect their own
economic interests. Not surprisingly, the suppression of Homeopathy,
then and continuing to this very day, is seeped with the same motives.
None of the efforts at abolishing Homeopathy, including state society
expulsion, were particularly effective until the turn of this century.
Then, it wasn’t legislation or licensing that was responsible for the
decline of Homeopathy. The infusion of large amounts of money from
Carnegie and Rockefeller to the cause of allopathic medicine was
instrumental in tipping the scales in its favor. It is ironic that
Rockefeller, a beneficiary of Homeopathic treatment himself, should fund
its demise. The final shove out the door of popularity was the
discovery of antibiotics and the dawning of the age of chemical
therapeutics.
By the middle of this century, Homeopathy was all but eliminated. The
thousands of practitioners had vanished, the hundred or so medical
schools had closed and the vast majority of the general population had
never even heard of Homeopathy.
The reemergence of Homeopathy started in the early
1970’s as disillusionment with the pharmaceutical approach of medical
therapeutics began to surface.
Natural foods, exercise, natural living, concern about pollution and
chemical toxins in our bodies and the environment began to take center
stage. In addition to which, the sterling reputation of technological
and pharmacological medicine for invincible prowess and superiority was
becoming more and more tarnished. Just as occurred 150 years ago, the
public had experienced the side effects, personal cost and problems of
allopathic medicine and was voting with their feet.
Now Homeopathy becomes more and more popular each and every year. In
the 5 years between 1985 and 1990, the sale of Homeopathic products
increased 1000%. Now when I tell the person seated next to me on the
plane that I am a doctor who practices Homeopathy, he doesn’t mistake
that for making house calls.
The vast majority of people prescribing and administering Homeopathy
today are in the group of non-licensed lay practitioners. There are
thousands of such practitioners and their numbers continue to grow.
This small army undoubtedly has an impact on the allopathic medical
revenues and public attitudes. Laws and legislation do not now and
never have curbed the growth in the ranks of this category of
practitioner.
Historically, Homeopathy has always had a large number of non-medical
unlicensed people practicing. In the
1800s America’s rural culture and lack of clear laws about who could and
could not practice medicine created a permissive environment for these
non-licensed practitioners. Today, the situation is quite different.
Although strong in number, they are all practicing illegally and are at
risk for legal problems.
As the twentieth century progressed there has been increasing
legislative control of the practice of medicine, both at the state and
federal level. State medical societies have been replaced by official
government sanctioned state licensing bodies. Although Homeopathy is no
longer proscribed by name, review of individual state laws governing the
practice of medicine shows that 20 out of 50 states have a clause which
distinctly applies to any doctor wishing to practice Homeopathy. These
laws, called the Standard of Practice provisions, declare that each
physician must practice up to the standard of care of his community, as
the other doctors in the state practice.
Although these provisions are promoted as a way of keeping incompetent
doctors from practicing, they also are extremely effective in keeping
any doctor from practicing differently from the majority. The first
doctor in a state to advocate nutrition, exercise, grief counseling,
Homeopathy or any other cutting edge idea is, by law, proscripted from
doing so. The lone innovator or Homeopath is at risk.
George Guess, a licensed medical doctor practicing Homeopathy in the
state of North Carolina discovered this the hard way. The Medical Board
of North Carolina took away his medical license in 1985 because he
practiced Homeopathy which was not consistent with the standard of care
of the medical community. How could it be; he was the only Homeopath in
the state. The battle was long and bloody. Over the 8 years in and out
of courts, including the state supreme court and spending in excessive
of $150,000, it was concluded that Dr. Guess was a knowledgeable
doctor, had not harmed anyone, had the support of his patients and was
generally a credit to his profession except, he was not doing what all
the other doctors were doing – allopathic medicine. When the favorable
decision of the state superior court exonerating Dr. Guess was
overturned on appeal, the ACLU agreed to sponsor his case before the US
Federal Court. The highest court refused to hear the case,
necessitating Dr. Guess to leave his home and move to another state to
practice.
While he was gone, North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing for
the practice of alternative medicine by doctors. Although the price for
this was the devastation and upheaval of Dr. Guess’s life and career,
at least now one more state had a definite law protecting Homeopaths.
Although few Homeopaths have had or will have the ordeal that Dr. Guess
faced, the law provides that they could. The biggest protections now
for licensed medical doctors wanting to practice Homeopathy is the
public sentiment so favorably disposed to Homeopathy.
The verdict in the court of public opinion is definitely not so
predisposed to the persecution of alternative therapies as it once was.
Today, the legal standing of Homeopathy and Homeopaths is in limbo.
Whereas in all but a few states, the restrictive laws are still on the
books yet Homeopathy is thriving and riding high on a tidal wave of
popular support. There is definitely an economic impact of all this
popularity, yet much of it cannot be measured because the majority of
Homeopaths are illegal practitioners whose work is not counted in
statistics.
Efforts at restricting the practice of Homeopathy today, as in the last
century, have proven almost completely ineffective. People want
Homeopathy and for that reason alone, it is here to stay and so is its
impact on the economics of medicine.
October 3, 2002 Linda Johnston, MD, DHt, (send her mail), a graduate of
the University of Washington School of Medicine and certified in
Homeopathy by the American Board of Homeotherapeutics, is in private
practice in Los Angeles. She is the author of Everyday Miracles:
Homeopathy in Action.
She co-authored a research paper entitled Regulatory Barriers to Entry
into Health Care Industry: The Case of Non-Traditional Medicine with
California State University Northridge professors of economics D.
Halcoussis, A. Lowenberg and G. Anderson which appeared in the
Federation Bulletin: The Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline,
Vol 86, Number 2
1999. The focus of the paper was to examine each state’s regulations
restricting alternative medicine, particuliary Homeopathy, and the
effect on allopathic medical incomes. The above was her address when
they presented this paper to the Public Choice Society’s Annual meeting
in New Orleans in March 1998.
Copyright © 2002 by LewRockwell.com
--
Health, Hope, Joy & Healing :
May you Prosper, even as your Soul Prospers 3John 2
Jennifer Ruby
Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.
http://www.rubysemporium.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SymphonicHealth
______________________________________________
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/johnston1.html
Homeopathy, Economics, and Government
by Linda Johnston, MD, DHt
The history of the regulation of alternative medical therapies,
particularly Homeopathy, is extremely interesting and sheds a great deal
of light on the current regulatory environment. In this short review of
that history, it can be seen that the current attempts at regulation
have roots as far back as 200 years ago.
The early 1800’s was a time of great transition in medicine. Whereas
the standard, allopathic form of treatment was dominant at the turn of
that century, that was not to last. The two most popular alternatives
to the orthodox practice were herbal medicine and Homeopathy.
By the time Homeopathy was introduced to America in
1825, herbal medicine was already well established.
Equally well established was the allopathic doctors’ animosity towards
any competition. The rise of Homeopathy particularly coincided with a
dramatic decline in the prestige of allopathic medicine and its
methods. There was a general and pervasive disdain and mistrust of
allopathic medicine. One author concluded that "to many people the
interests of the medical profession as a whole were opposed to the best
interests of society."
Within 15 years of being introduced to America, Homeopathy was offering
serious competition to allopathic medicine and by 1860, Homeopathy was
flourishing with many doctors available in every state. The biggest
asset to the spread of Homeopathy was the home prescriber, or unlicensed
lay practitioner. America of the 1800’s was predominantly rural and
most areas had no physician close at hand.
Mothers treating their children’s problems easily and inexpensively
caused the news of Homeopathy to spread like a brush fire throughout the
mid-west and eastern seaboard. While political battles and turf wars
raged between the doctors, many people successfully treated typhoid,
cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with
their Homeopathic remedies and without doctors.
Even the press of the day were favorable to Homeopathy and its articles
often reflected the general public’s contempt for allopathic medicine.
One such article condemned "the rigidly anti-innovative attitude which
the Old School doctors have so consistently maintained for centuries"
and recommended that there be free and open competition between the two
systems, "where the public will act as umpires, deciding after a careful
perusal of the undertakers bills on either side."
As a consequence, extreme hatred and economic jealousy was aroused in
the allopaths. These economic concerns were well documented. One
review wrote of Homeopathy, "quackery .... by fraud and deception, too
frequently triumphs and grows rich, where wiser and better men scarcely
escape starvation." In 1846, The New York Journal of Medicine stated,
"quackery occasions a large pecuniary loss to us."
The public was quite willing to pay high fees for Homeopathy, much to
the consternation of the economically struggling allopaths. Most
Homeopaths had higher incomes than their allopathic counterparts, having
busy, thriving practices in the same areas where allopaths couldn’t earn
enough to live. The annual income for an allopath in 1871 averaged
$1000, whereas a Homeopath’s averaged $4000.
The allopaths blamed the public for the situation, contemptuously
regarding them as ignorant, undiscriminating and easily deceived,
clearly needing to be protected from their own perverse ignorance. It
never occurred to the allopathic doctors that the public, rather than
being ignorant of orthodox medicine, were very familiar with it and
consequently didn’t like it.
If you think doctors have outgrown this attitude from
1800, I will refer you to the recent article in the prestigious
allopathic journal The New England Journal of Medicine. After reviewing
the habits of a large cohort of patients, it was concluded that one
third of Americans use some method of non-conventional medical treatment
and pay more out of their own pocket to do so than the combined money
spent on all primary care allopathic office visits. As a result of this
startling finding, the authors did not suggest further investigation as
to why such a large number of patients prefer non-traditional treatment,
nor was it suggested that these treatments must have something valuable
to offer. Instead, in a move reminiscent of attitudes over 150 years
old, the authors advised that doctors inquire if their patients are
using some form of non-conventional therapy so that they can better
bring these errant patients back to conventional treatment.
The brunt of the blame for declining allopathic fortunes was laid at the
door of the Homeopaths. The allopaths had concern about the growing
competition from Homeopathy, stated as "quackery in the profession."
They felt the apparently declining standards of medical education was
the cause of physicians converting to Homeopathy and these ideas were
the prime motives in the founding of the American Medical Association in
1847. It is interesting to note that the professional organization for
Homeopathy equivalent to the AMA, the American Institute of Homeopathy,
was founded earlier in 1844, making it the oldest professional medical
organization.
Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting,
restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed
in the early
1800’s to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths
from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every
case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely
unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years.
Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical
societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire
for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves
the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to
licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine
without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the
power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were
also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens.
Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in
the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical
society membership and representation in the AMA required that these
societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths. After 1847, all
state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition,
professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between
allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between
the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the
AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action
for something that was totally legal.
All this speaks of the restraint of trade. All professions have used
laws, licensing, legislation, unions and guilds to protect their own
economic interests. Not surprisingly, the suppression of Homeopathy,
then and continuing to this very day, is seeped with the same motives.
None of the efforts at abolishing Homeopathy, including state society
expulsion, were particularly effective until the turn of this century.
Then, it wasn’t legislation or licensing that was responsible for the
decline of Homeopathy. The infusion of large amounts of money from
Carnegie and Rockefeller to the cause of allopathic medicine was
instrumental in tipping the scales in its favor. It is ironic that
Rockefeller, a beneficiary of Homeopathic treatment himself, should fund
its demise. The final shove out the door of popularity was the
discovery of antibiotics and the dawning of the age of chemical
therapeutics.
By the middle of this century, Homeopathy was all but eliminated. The
thousands of practitioners had vanished, the hundred or so medical
schools had closed and the vast majority of the general population had
never even heard of Homeopathy.
The reemergence of Homeopathy started in the early
1970’s as disillusionment with the pharmaceutical approach of medical
therapeutics began to surface.
Natural foods, exercise, natural living, concern about pollution and
chemical toxins in our bodies and the environment began to take center
stage. In addition to which, the sterling reputation of technological
and pharmacological medicine for invincible prowess and superiority was
becoming more and more tarnished. Just as occurred 150 years ago, the
public had experienced the side effects, personal cost and problems of
allopathic medicine and was voting with their feet.
Now Homeopathy becomes more and more popular each and every year. In
the 5 years between 1985 and 1990, the sale of Homeopathic products
increased 1000%. Now when I tell the person seated next to me on the
plane that I am a doctor who practices Homeopathy, he doesn’t mistake
that for making house calls.
The vast majority of people prescribing and administering Homeopathy
today are in the group of non-licensed lay practitioners. There are
thousands of such practitioners and their numbers continue to grow.
This small army undoubtedly has an impact on the allopathic medical
revenues and public attitudes. Laws and legislation do not now and
never have curbed the growth in the ranks of this category of
practitioner.
Historically, Homeopathy has always had a large number of non-medical
unlicensed people practicing. In the
1800s America’s rural culture and lack of clear laws about who could and
could not practice medicine created a permissive environment for these
non-licensed practitioners. Today, the situation is quite different.
Although strong in number, they are all practicing illegally and are at
risk for legal problems.
As the twentieth century progressed there has been increasing
legislative control of the practice of medicine, both at the state and
federal level. State medical societies have been replaced by official
government sanctioned state licensing bodies. Although Homeopathy is no
longer proscribed by name, review of individual state laws governing the
practice of medicine shows that 20 out of 50 states have a clause which
distinctly applies to any doctor wishing to practice Homeopathy. These
laws, called the Standard of Practice provisions, declare that each
physician must practice up to the standard of care of his community, as
the other doctors in the state practice.
Although these provisions are promoted as a way of keeping incompetent
doctors from practicing, they also are extremely effective in keeping
any doctor from practicing differently from the majority. The first
doctor in a state to advocate nutrition, exercise, grief counseling,
Homeopathy or any other cutting edge idea is, by law, proscripted from
doing so. The lone innovator or Homeopath is at risk.
George Guess, a licensed medical doctor practicing Homeopathy in the
state of North Carolina discovered this the hard way. The Medical Board
of North Carolina took away his medical license in 1985 because he
practiced Homeopathy which was not consistent with the standard of care
of the medical community. How could it be; he was the only Homeopath in
the state. The battle was long and bloody. Over the 8 years in and out
of courts, including the state supreme court and spending in excessive
of $150,000, it was concluded that Dr. Guess was a knowledgeable
doctor, had not harmed anyone, had the support of his patients and was
generally a credit to his profession except, he was not doing what all
the other doctors were doing – allopathic medicine. When the favorable
decision of the state superior court exonerating Dr. Guess was
overturned on appeal, the ACLU agreed to sponsor his case before the US
Federal Court. The highest court refused to hear the case,
necessitating Dr. Guess to leave his home and move to another state to
practice.
While he was gone, North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing for
the practice of alternative medicine by doctors. Although the price for
this was the devastation and upheaval of Dr. Guess’s life and career,
at least now one more state had a definite law protecting Homeopaths.
Although few Homeopaths have had or will have the ordeal that Dr. Guess
faced, the law provides that they could. The biggest protections now
for licensed medical doctors wanting to practice Homeopathy is the
public sentiment so favorably disposed to Homeopathy.
The verdict in the court of public opinion is definitely not so
predisposed to the persecution of alternative therapies as it once was.
Today, the legal standing of Homeopathy and Homeopaths is in limbo.
Whereas in all but a few states, the restrictive laws are still on the
books yet Homeopathy is thriving and riding high on a tidal wave of
popular support. There is definitely an economic impact of all this
popularity, yet much of it cannot be measured because the majority of
Homeopaths are illegal practitioners whose work is not counted in
statistics.
Efforts at restricting the practice of Homeopathy today, as in the last
century, have proven almost completely ineffective. People want
Homeopathy and for that reason alone, it is here to stay and so is its
impact on the economics of medicine.
October 3, 2002 Linda Johnston, MD, DHt, (send her mail), a graduate of
the University of Washington School of Medicine and certified in
Homeopathy by the American Board of Homeotherapeutics, is in private
practice in Los Angeles. She is the author of Everyday Miracles:
Homeopathy in Action.
She co-authored a research paper entitled Regulatory Barriers to Entry
into Health Care Industry: The Case of Non-Traditional Medicine with
California State University Northridge professors of economics D.
Halcoussis, A. Lowenberg and G. Anderson which appeared in the
Federation Bulletin: The Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline,
Vol 86, Number 2
1999. The focus of the paper was to examine each state’s regulations
restricting alternative medicine, particuliary Homeopathy, and the
effect on allopathic medical incomes. The above was her address when
they presented this paper to the Public Choice Society’s Annual meeting
in New Orleans in March 1998.
Copyright © 2002 by LewRockwell.com
--
Health, Hope, Joy & Healing :
May you Prosper, even as your Soul Prospers 3John 2
Jennifer Ruby
Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.
http://www.rubysemporium.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SymphonicHealth
______________________________________________
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯