My niece, who has Lyme, is of course in Canada, as is her doctor (who is currently subject to disciplinary proceedings).
What I hadn't quite grasped is that her ability to received continued treatment is being affected by an effort driven by the profit motive -- the practices of the health insurance industry in the U.S., where we don't even live.
It's not entirely clear to me what the interest of the Canadian medical profession in joining the parade would be.
My niece is still quite ill. She was bitten at a known Canadian Lyme "hot spot", but did not manifest symptoms until many months later, when she became too sick to attend school. After a huge amount of research on her own, my sister connected the symptoms to the bite my niece had received but that no particular attention had been paid to at the time (she only learned later that the area in question was regarded as a hot spot).
This is interesting:
http://www.faim.org/news.htmJune 30, 2005 OPMC DEVELOPMENT
The following text is verbatim of an OPMC/BPMC advisory distributed this last week to all OPMC staff, attorneys, and administrative law judges, as well as all members of the Board of Professional Medical Conduct. The memorandum was issued at the direction of Governor Pataki.
Subject: Investigation of Practitioners Utilizing Treatment Modalities That Are Not Universally Accepted by the Medical Profession.
"This memorandum is intended to memorialize and endorse the principles that are currently in place in the Office of Professional Medical Conduct regarding the investigation of physicians, physician assistants and specialist assistants who use treatment modalities that are not universally accepted by the medical profession, such as the varying modalities used in the treatment of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
"As you know, Article 131 of the Education Law defines the practice of medicine. Paragraph (e) of subdivision four of §6527 of the Education Law provides that Article 131 'shall not be construed to affect or prevent... physician's use of whatever medical care, conventional or non-conventional, which effectively treats human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition.' Under current law, therefore, it is clear that so long as a treatment modality effectively treats human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition, the recommendation or provision of that modality does not, by itself, constitute professional misconduct. Consequently, it is contrary to the policy and practice of the Office of Professional Medical Conduct to identify, investigate or charge a physician, physician's assistant or specialist assistant based solely on that practitioner's recommendation or provision of such treatment modality. Please note that this prohibition does not exonerate such practitioners from otherwise applicable professional requirements.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(247 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
