Medicine and your license

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For the purpose of the offense of practicing medicine without a license,

the

Quoted message said:

"practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure,

or

Quoted message said:

relieving of a human disease, ailment, defect, complaint, or other

physical

Quoted message said:

or mental condition, by attendance, advice, device, diagnostic test, or other means, or offering,
undertaking, attempting to do, or holding

oneself

Quoted message said:

out as able to do, any of these acts.

Anth

Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
From: "mdd" [email hidden]
Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the government. The medical monopoly
reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State and local laws protecting "their rights." With
medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly
is still going full bore. Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow
the rules, the rules of "usual and customary care."

It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his patient with something other than
treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical monopoly. Truly sad.

DrC PhD

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
From: "mdd" [email hidden]
Date: 1/27/2004 5:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

I see it at protecting the majority of consumers who prefer that their medical doctors have
documented credentials,,,

without them..anyone..including Janny Drew could stand on a street corner and babble about
sujbects she has no knowledge of...what she calls "actual experience" is obviously not
knowledge..esp when she butts into every thread out there...most of the time not even reading what
she posts..nor understanding it if she reads it..then if anyone questions her,,she simply reposts
over and over again....

hawki.....

any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my own.....

any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health care provider evaluate and
treat any problems

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
From: [email hidden] (DRCEEPHD)
Date: 1/27/2004 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

he FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly is

The FDA does not police any intruders..unless you are talking about unproven substances...

.>modern doctor has to provide his patient with

Quoted message said:

something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

that is truly a stupid statement...oh right you do believe trauma is real....right???

hawki.....

any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my own.....

any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health care provider evaluate and
treat any problems

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email hidden] Date: 1/27/2004 5:31 PM Pacific
Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

I see it at protecting the majority of consumers who prefer that their medical doctors have
documented credentials,,,

without them..anyone..including Janny Drew could stand on a street corner

and So, you are opposed to freedom of speech? Perhaps you would be happy in some other place?

Quoted message said:

babble about sujbects she has no knowledge of...what she calls "actual experience" is obviously
not knowledge..

Experince is not knowledge? May I quote you on this? esp when she butts into every thread

Quoted message said:

out there...most of the time not even reading what she posts..nor

understanding

Quoted message said:

it if she reads it..then if anyone questions her,,she simply reposts over

and

Quoted message said:

over again....

Sure got a hard-on for Jan huh?

Quoted message said:

hawki.....

any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my

own..... And you arrive at those "views" without any experince, right?

Quoted message said:

any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health

care

Quoted message said:

provider evaluate and treat any problems

Whata matter? Do you fear lawsuits?

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: [email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) Date: 1/27/2004 5:44 PM
Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

he FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly is

The FDA does not police any intruders..unless you are talking about

unproven

Quoted message said:

substances...

.>modern doctor has to provide his patient with

Quoted message said:

something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

that is truly a stupid statement...oh right you do believe trauma is real....right???

hawki.....

any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my

own.....

Quoted message said:

any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health

care

Quoted message said:

provider evaluate and treat any problems

Hawki, you really should think before you post.

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email hidden] Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern
Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the government. The medical
monopoly reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State and local laws protecting "their
rights."

By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
requirements -- just as with regulations of many professions/trades. Those who claim to heal with
prayer are not forced to go to med school, nor should they be. Those who prescribe potentially
contraindicated substances are mandated to have training WRT those substances, A&P, etc. & such
training is definitely in the patient's interest. Restricting the use of surgery to those with
surgical training is reasonable. Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer
medication is just as logical. Having definitions of various jobs lets patients know what education
they can expect their doctor, nurse, X-ray tech, etc. to have. Conventional providers can & often do
include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are not forbidden by anyone from doing so.
Insurance companies decide what services are covered, what professionals they will pay. That isn't
established by the gov't. here in the States.

Quoted message said:

With medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical
monopoly is still going full bore.

The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.

Quoted message said:

Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow the rules, the rules of
"usual and customary care."

So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....

They sue conventional docs all the time when they think the doc did something wrong & suing an alt.
provider is no different. If a provider (alt. or mainstream) wants to participate in the health care
arena, they expose themselves to that risk. If alt. medicine has satisfied patients, lawsuits will
be no more of a problem than they are with most MD's.

Quoted message said:

It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his patient with something other
than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

The vast majority of MD's benefit their patients. They provide services that usually improve
the overall quality of life for those they treat -- share information that can enable patients
to maintain their own good health -- & try to alleviate pain & suffering when possible. There
are easier ways to make more money than by being a doctor. Ditto for nurses & others who work
in the field.

Luckily, helping others & seeing the benefits our work brings people is very satisfying.

Quoted message said:

An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical monopoly. Truly sad.

DrC PhD

The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate, reporting
of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their educational/experiential
credentials honestly.

"Michele" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email hidden] Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern
Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>
Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

good ol boys club.

You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the

government.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The medical monopoly reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

local laws protecting "their rights."

By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
requirements -- just as with regulations of many professions/trades. Those who claim to heal with
prayer are not forced to go to med school, nor should they be. Those who prescribe potentially
contraindicated substances are mandated to have training WRT those substances, A&P, etc. & such
training is definitely in the patient's interest. Restricting the use of surgery to those with
surgical training is reasonable. Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer
medication is just as logical. Having definitions of various jobs lets patients know what
education they can expect their doctor, nurse, X-ray tech, etc. to have. Conventional providers
can & often do include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are not forbidden by anyone
from doing so. Insurance companies decide what services are covered, what professionals they will
pay. That isn't established by the gov't. here in the States.

Quoted message said:

With medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical
monopoly is

still

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

going full bore.

The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.

Quoted message said:

Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow the rules, the rules
of "usual and customary care."

So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....

They sue conventional docs all the time when they think the doc did something wrong & suing an
alt. provider is no different. If a provider (alt. or mainstream) wants to participate in the
health care arena, they expose themselves to that risk. If alt. medicine has satisfied patients,
lawsuits will be no more of a problem than they are with most MD's.

Quoted message said:

It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his

patient with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the

patient.

Quoted message said:

The vast majority of MD's benefit their patients. They provide services that usually improve
the overall quality of life for those they treat -- share information that can enable patients
to maintain their own good health -- & try to alleviate pain & suffering when possible. There
are easier ways to make more money than by being a doctor. Ditto for nurses & others who work
in the field.

Luckily, helping others & seeing the benefits our work brings people is very satisfying.

Quoted message said:

An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical

monopoly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Truly sad.

DrC PhD

The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate, reporting
of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their educational/experiential
credentials honestly.

Bla bla bla, same ol same ol. Can't you come up with something more convincing for those of us who
are skeptical of your drugs and all?

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hawki is jealous and has very low self esteem. She appears to have a need to belittle others to
build herself up.

She also like to [censored], she must be Michele''s sister.

Jan

LOLOLOL!! For someone who's claimed I am "waste of time", you sure spend time mentioning my name,
Jan. I guess you either like wasting time or you lied. What a funny little nincompoop you are......

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: [email hidden] (Michele) Date: 1/28/04 4:06
PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
requirements -

Demanding a license is one way to limit competition and increase the earnings of those who reside
within the guild.

Requiring licensure is a way to establish basic standards. It stops those with no training in (as an
example) surgery from doing it. We expect those behind the wheel of a car to have met certain
criteria to drive. Other professions that don't require a gov't. isssued license still require that
those who work in the profession meet specific standards -- teachers require college degrees in most
areas of the country being such a situation.

Quoted message said:

It works for carpenters and plumbers

Not sure about plumbers -- but carpenters aren't professionally licensed by the gov't. It hasn't
brought down the amount they charge.

Quoted message said:

just as it works for doctors who wish to limit their competition.

It doesn't "limit competition" -- there are docs everywhere. In the cases of MD's specializing in
unusual problems, the number of patients requring that specialized treatment is what limits
practitioner numbers.

Quoted message said:

Licensing in no way guarantees that the doc won't cut off the wrong leg or kill you with the wrong
medication.

And drivers' licenses don't guarantee a safe driver -- but simply *hoping* a professional has met
minimal educational standards or that they might figure out how to perform a surgical procedure
leaves consumers at the mercy of anybody who comes down the pike. It also leaves them little
recourse when gross incompetence leads to serious injury or death. Without minimal standards, there
are no guidelines at all. Malpractice would become something patients need to accept without so much
as a grumble.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Restricting the use of surgery to those with surgical training is reasonable.

True enough, but limiting surgery to only the allopaths is criminalistic and monopolistic. There
is no reason chiropractors, naturopaths, and others could not be so trained except for the
monopolistic laws on the books which limit surgery to allopaths.

Not so at all. Training for DC's, naturopaths, etc. doesn't include surgery because *those health
care philosophies don't include it*. Just as a massage therapist's training doesn't include the
prescription of drugs *because it's not part of massage*. Nutritionists don't fill cavities --
nurses don't perform chiropractic adjustments -- the list could go on. To expect that a health care
professional would be trained in modalities/skills that are not even a part of their purpose, that
contradict their approach to wellness is absurd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer medication is just as logical.

But forcing her to admister a drug which she knows is wrong happens often. If she refuses, the doc
will have her fired.

Once again, totally untrue. A nurse is expected to use his/her nursing judgement & if that
contradicts an order, they are obligated to act in what they evaluate is the patient's best
interest. I've questioned docs in such situations -- checked to make sure dosages are right, that no
apparent contraindications exist for using a particular med, reminded MD's about considerations like
patient allergies & what the patient wanted or didn't want. On more than a couple of occasions I
declined to follow a specific order I thought would negatively impact a patient -- & was NEVER even
reprimanded (let alone fired) after I informed my supervisor or the MD of my decision. [And unless a
nurse works directly for a doctor, he's not the one who hires or fires a nurse. I ultimately answer
to the hospital or other facility where I work. The clinic where I currently work employs the
doctors & the MD Medical Director there -- just as they employ me.]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Conventional providers can & often do include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are
not forbidden by anyone from doing so.

Now that is an absolute lie. You should have known better than to write that. In California, if an
oncologist recommends or attempts to use an alt methodology that doc can be fined $10,000 dollars
and lose his license to practice medicine.

It would be YOU lying with that one. An oncologist in any state can prescribe supplements -- massage
-- meditation -- or any other alt. modality to a patient. There is NO statute that prohibits a
doctor from encouraging the use of cell salts -- crystals -- or any other non-traditional therapy.
The MD is mandated not to deceive a patient with false information about various courses of
treatment, whether alt. or conventional -- & if *that* requirement is not met, then the doc has not
provided basic standards of care.

Many docs utilize alt. therapies along with more traditional treatments. Oncologists often prescribe
massage, acupuncture, meditation, exercise, supplements, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.

Who writes the rules for diagnosis?

Apples & oranges -- scope of practice only defines which professionals are qualified to do what.
State & sometimes Federal gov'ts. determine scope of practice, nothing to do with the FDA.

There *are* no "rules for diagnosis". There are commonly acknowledged diagnostic procedures for many
disorders, but they are guidelines only -- not written in stone. As technology advances, as more
research gives us more information about various disorders & health care problems, those guidelines
change to reflect what we've found out. There are also definitions of diseases that outline s/s of
each. The diganosis of HTN involves not just elevated BP readings, but considers the frequency &
consistency of such readings, the circumstances where the increased BP is observed, etc. Once again,
most disorders are defined by generally acepted guidelines, not laws imposed by any gov't. or
governmental agency.

Quoted message said:

It is my understanding that the FDA changed the rules for diagnosing polio which effectively
curtailed the diagnosis of polio after introduction of the vaccine, but left intact an identical
disease called aceptic meningitis.

They are not the same. Just as seizures could be caused by a tumor or by a blow to the head,
disorders sharing the same s/s could have very different etiologies & respond to very different
treatments.

If there *were* "rules for diagnosis", there would no misdiagnosed patients.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....

And greedy lawyers keep the doctors worried and in the flock, so to speak.

Follow along, CEE. If staying "in the flock" prevented patients from winning lawsuits, how come docs
get sued & patients win???? Your argument doesn't hold up. Anybody can sue anyone for anything at
anytime. The fact that some of the biggest charlatans -- alt. & conventional -- don't get sued also
pokes big ol' holes in your statement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate,
reporting of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their
educational/experiential credentials honestly.

Yuk, yuk , yuk.

No one reading your posts or the posts of the other debunkers could ever believe honesty resides
within your camp.

Your entire post contains nothing more than misinformation & outright untruths. Citing conspiracies
that don't exist doesn't change that.

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

In article said:

Hawki, you really should think before you post.

Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Michele" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant, are to be pitied. They
cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.

"Michele" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>... .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just as it works for doctors who wish to limit their competition.

It doesn't "limit competition" -- there are docs everywhere.

It limits the competition to other "Docs" only.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Licensing in no way guarantees that the doc won't cut off the wrong leg

or kill you with the wrong medication.

Quoted message said:

And drivers' licenses don't guarantee a safe driver -- but simply *hoping* a professional has met
minimal educational standards or that they might figure out how to perform a surgical procedure
leaves consumers at the mercy of anybody who comes down the pike. It also leaves them little
recourse when gross incompetence leads to serious injury or death.

Like tort reform???

Quoted message said:

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Hawki, you really should think before you post.

Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

But David, you are not qualified to vote.

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Michele" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant,

are

Quoted message said:

to be pitied. They cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.

After reading some of your posts, you should feel sorry for yourself.

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, mdd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hawki, you really should think before you post.

Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

But David, you are not qualified to vote.

Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
"thinking" is.)

"Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, mdd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Hawki, you really should think before you post.

Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on
my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

But David, you are not qualified to vote.

Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
"thinking" is.)

Your sputtering in the "Flu" post clearly show that YOU are not qualified to question anyone's
abilities.

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, mdd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> >
> >Hawki, you really should think before you post.
>
> Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
> always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
> on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
>
>
>
>
>
But David, you are not qualified to vote.

Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
"thinking" is.)

Your sputtering in the "Flu" post clearly show that YOU are not qualified

to

Quoted message said:

question anyone's abilities.

Sure I am. Since I do not sputter, but cogently discet your pathetic baloney, you just have to
whine, weasel and wiggle your way out of being logically cornered.

"Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Michele" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michele I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant,

are

Quoted message said:

to be pitied. They cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.

After reading some of your posts, you should feel sorry for yourself.

I DO feel sorry for you. But I feel even more so for anyone who has the misfortune of knowing or
having to live near or with you.