Ontario to give naturopaths prescription rights

Meanwhile our pharmaceuticals, that provide us with 'health', get diluted into 'insignificance' into our life-waters and cures us of our well being.

Man made applied science mostly amounts to shortciruiting nature. See the results all around us. What more evidence do we need.

I don't think it's happening; I had a look at bill 179, and it doesn't expand the scope of practice for naturopaths.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b179.pdf

It does give pharmacists the right to prescribe, and give injections....who wants to be the 1st to get a flu shot from me?

(Like unionist said, that letter from Andrea Horwath's office is confusing.  Whoever wrote that letter didn't seem to know much about health care legislation.)

Get serious, Fidel. You're attacking Steve Thoms because of the loonies who [i]oppose[/i] his articles? That's a tiny bit of a stretch, isn't it? And just because he doesn't delete offensive posts, why would you want to quote one here?

And throwing money into quackery will only make the problem worse.

Fidel wrote:

And, the NDP is not at fault for the state of our health care in Ontario.

Ok, I am now well and truly lost - must be my unfamiliarity with Ontario politics.

I assumed this was about a government bill (179) and it would appear that the NDP is supporting the bill. Am I right?

If so, who here is blaming the NDP for the state of our health care in Ontario?

I just want to make sure that if there's a good fight, there are at least two sides...

I think that that the term naturopaths covers a wide range of professionals from lifestyle coaches to snake oil salespeople.  I know people that have found helpful advise and products from a trip to a naturopath (and I know people whose existence is now ran by a quack).

The need for the ability to prescribe flows directly from the decision to enforce stricter regulation of natural health products.

I agree with you on homeopathy, although I may yet be proven wrong. 

You seem very quick to dismiss anything that is not based on our particular scientificky version of doctoring.  How do you feel about medicine and healing as practised by cultures other than ours?  Is is all quackery as well?

Unionist, I agree with your whole post and off the top of my head I can't think of one culture that does not use antibiotics.  Did I suggest otherwise in my question to Lord P?

My question  - to LP - was whether he was as dismissive of other cultural healing as he was of say, "Asian Medicine".

Sineed wrote:

I don't think it's happening; I had a look at bill 179, and it doesn't expand the scope of practice for naturopaths.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b179.pdf

As the blog post linked in the OP notes, the draft bill has been amended in committee after hearing from lobbyists for the naturopaths. The following has been added into the bill:

Quote:

 

17. ( 0.1) Subsection 4 (1) of the [url=http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07n10_e... Act, 2007[/url] is amended by adding the following paragraph:

[b]7. Prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling a drug designated in the regulations.[/b]

(0.2) Section 11 of the Act is amended by adding the following clause:

[b](g) designating the drugs that a member may prescribe, dispense, compound or sell for the purpose of paragraph 7 of subsection 4 (1), prescribing the purposes for which, or the circumstances in which, the designated drugs may be prescribed, dispensed, compounded or sold and prohibiting the prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling of drugs other than the ones designated.[/b]

[url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_business.do?B...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

What they refer to as "Asian Medicine" is actually so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine.  That is quackery, and frankly insulting to Asian doctors and scientists.

What is the difference?  (I have gone to google, I think I know what you mean but not sure).

Sineed wrote:

It does give pharmacists the right to prescribe, and give injections....who wants to be the 1st to get a flu shot from me?

I would not hesitate to get a flu shot from you Sineed (were I planning on getting a flu shot, that is).  Ditto from a nurse.  I actually think the solution to our health care crisis might be to take the reins somewhat away from the doctors.  It's ludicrous to suggest you need a medical degree to safely give an injection. 

[url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopath... A Skeptical Look[/url]

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/24/healthandwellbeing.ra... Shapiro on how to spot quacks[/url]

G. Pie wrote:

  It's ludicrous to suggest you need a medical degree to safely give an injection. 

Or birthing babies. Apparently physicians tend to opt for the C section method of delivery too often. Theyre in, theyre out, and tee times are preserved. Thank goodness Ontario was the first province in Canada to regulate and legislate midwifery in 1994 with our first NDP government. Doctors were considered little gods for a long time before that.

Thanks Sineed.  I am sure you get a lot of those.  But I am not so much asking about traditional medicine, as it's sold in a jar in Canada, as I am about traditional healing.  I have a fuzzy idea that these are two different entities altogether.

What about the many cultures that believe in a holistic method of healing?  I read a paper by the Native Womens Assocation of Canada, and the authors were concerned that they were losing their traditional ways.  They believed that to treat the body you had to treat the mind and the spriti as well, and that modern medicine was in danger of replacing this.

Quote:

Traditional healing treats your mind, body, and spirit. Thus, it is holistic. This is very
different from western medicine which focuses on parts of the body and separates the
body from the mind. Traditional healing aims to restore balance. Ceremony and the
power of faith and belief are important parts of traditional healing. At its best, traditional
healing is a way of living, a way of approaching life.
The ways of traditional healing are as diverse as Aboriginal cultures, but there are many
things in common. One is the belief that healing takes time and that it can be intense.
Another common belief is that the relationship between the healer and the person is
important. Aboriginal people also believe that ceremonies offer guidance and begin
healing or help it along. Medicines come from the natural environment or from our
Mother, the Earth. Healers are recognized by their communities and have learned not
by going to school, but from other healers and Elders.

I am asking if there is a place for that in modern society, or does it all get relegated to the quackery file.

(Edited because I finally figured out how to copy from a pdf)

Polly B wrote:

Does that mean you lump traditional healing in with these, or not?

[url=http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html]Quackery: How Should It Be Defined[/url]

Quote:

Folk medicine, even when known to be erroneous, is not generally considered quackery so long as it is not done for gain. Thus, self-treatment, family home treatment, neighborly medical advice, and the noncommercial activities of folk healers should not be labeled as quackery. However, folk medicine and quackery are closely connected because folk medicine often provides a basis for commercial exploitation. For example, herbs long gathered for personal use have been packaged and promoted by modern entrepreneurs, and practitioners who once served their neighbors voluntarily or for gratuities may market themselves outside their traditional communities.

All things considered, I find it most useful to define quackery as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. Promotion usually involves a profit motive. Unsubstantiated means either unproven or disproven. Implausible means that it either clashes with well-established facts or makes so little sense that it is not worth testing.

So "traditional medicine" in and of itself is not quackery.  But this is a topic about naturopathic "doctors" who want to be viewed as legitimate medical practitioners.  And they certainly meet the definition of being quacks.

Treating the whole person is really the ideal, and if traditional healing practices facilitate that, they should be embraced as part of the healing process.  What I object to are practices that masquerade as "traditional" or "natural" or "wholistic," or whatever terminology the quackmeisters are using these days to separate the neo-hippies from their cash, or exploit desperate sick people, raising false hopes for a few bucks.

Like LP says, we're emphasizing what makes a noise like a duck because it's consistent with the thread topic.  I don't know much about traditional FN healing, but I have encountered a few FN healers in my workplace, and they seem to work in concert with modern medicine rather than trying to contradict it.  I might quibble with the Native Women's Association, though, because medical culture is much, much more open-minded and culturally sensitive these days than it ever has been (which is not to say that a lot of progress is still needed).

As I've mentioned before, modern medicine such as we have in Canada is not "Western;" many cultures have contributed to it through the centuries.  It's the common heritage of humanity, IMO, and we are privileged to enjoy such high quality health care in this country that we can afford to reject it, picking and choosing according to our preferences.  This is not the experience of most people in the world, who take whatever health care they can get.  Rich people in poor countries choose modern medicine, flying to the US or Canada or Europe for health care.  The poor people in those countries may go with traditional healing because that's all they have.  And then there are the leaders, Mao and more recently, Thabo Mbeki, who encouraged traditional healing practices because they didn't want to pay for modern medicine.

For me, being progressive means promoting the highest quality of health care for everybody in the world.  And being respectful of cultural practices is a part of that.  As is calling out the scamsters.

Boom Boom wrote:

Polly B wrote:

Ditto, Sineed.  If I were to get the shot, I would just as soon a pharmacist or a nurse.  

 

Maybe from a nurse trained in emergency procedures, because I'd want someone injecting me to be able to deal with any possible reactions (going into shock, cardiac arrest, etc) I might get from the shot.

Fair enough.  That's why we keep you around for 15 minutes in case you forgot to tell us you're allergic to eggs or whatever, and we've got the adrenalin and antihistamine shots all right there - it's all part of the training.

Sineed wrote:

Like LP says, we're emphasizing what makes a noise like a duck because it's consistent with the thread topic.

Ya, I know.  I just keep trying to take these threads in a different direction because, really, do we need another thread on scamsters and homeopaths and how awful we all think they are?  Part IXII?  I think we have a lot more middle ground, and we are getting mired in the extreme arguments on either side, and losing out on what could be great discussions about health care in general.

The "western" thing come from the paper I quoted, but I have been guilty of using it too.  What do we call it, our scientific practise of medicine?  Its not western, or modern, or allopath, or doctor based.....(I have tried all of those and been corrected lol). 

In any event, that paper was sent to me by a friend in BC because she felt that I was worrying too much about the body (diet, exercise etc) and not taking the time to nourish the mind and spirit.  She had a point I think, but I am still trying to figure out how to do just that. :)

Polly B wrote:

 I think we have a lot more middle ground, and we are getting mired in the extreme arguments on either side, and losing out on what could be great discussions about health care in general.

Ya.  Though this thread has been okay, actually.

What do we call our medicine?  I'm using "modern" medicine until something better comes to me.  The most correct term is "Evidence-based medicine," but that sounds so pompous and it isn't strictly speaking correct, since some doctors don't follow practices that are quite so evidence based.

I've been studying diabetes tonight.  One of the trials I was looking at tested a drug, metformin, against lifestyle interventions and "conventional" treatment for people at risk for diabetes ("conventional" treatment was telling people to lose weight, and giving them leaflets).  Results were, the lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) were far and away the most effective for preventing diabetes, BUT people couldn't stick with them.

There are lots of studies like this.  My point is, people need support of some sort to look after themselves physically and psychologically.  In north America, people take far too many psychoactive drugs and painkillers.  We're substituting for something we need and aren't getting.

N.R.KISSED wrote:

maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

There is no clash between cultures or countries or civilizations on this planet over rival medical systems, and the rejection of non-scientific systems has nothing to do with imperialism. Within each society and culture, as I noted above, there are parallel non-scientific systems that sometimes coexist with, and sometimes clash with, universally recognized science-based medicine. "Universally" doesn't mean every individual in the world - but it certainly does mean every country, every society, with no exceptions known to me.

N.R.KISSED wrote:

maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

I don't need to deny it because you look foolish and desperate for making that suggestion.

Sineed wrote:

I've been studying diabetes tonight.  One of the trials I was looking at tested a drug, metformin, against lifestyle interventions and "conventional" treatment for people at risk for diabetes ("conventional" treatment was telling people to lose weight, and giving them leaflets).  Results were, the lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) were far and away the most effective for preventing diabetes, BUT people couldn't stick with them.

Ya, I found a lot of that when I was looking into diet and nutrition for RA.  We have so much disease that is a direct result of what we are putting in our mouths, and so little education about how bad it actually is.  I can see how radical diet and lifestyle changes would be hard to stick to, but surely they are better than dying from complications of diabetes? 

I think part of it is too that we believe that we can be cured by a pill.  When my BP was high, I was given diovan and it came down.  I honestly thought I was "cured".  It wasn't till I had my come-to-jesus moment with the RA that I realized all I had done for all that time was bury the symptoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXe1qKOIfmU

This is disgusting N.R. KISSED, thanks for your education.