Contact These Organizations! Stop The Midlevels And Naturopaths!

[brooksbane]

1111111111111111111111111111111

[seeking1]

God brooksbane, you really have it in for these groups, eh?

 

Fair enough, I can understand where you are coming from. If they can't produce the knowledge and solutions to medical problems though, they're screwed. Look at whats happening to chiropractors in Britain, lol.

[thebouque]

THE LIST OF ONTARIO LEGISLATURE MEMBERS

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/member_addresses.do?AddType=QP&locale=en

 

CMA head office

1867 Alta Vista Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

K1G 5W8

 

MCC

Mailing address:

Medical Council of Canada

PO Box 8234 Stn T

Ottawa ON Canada K1G 3H7

 

Minster of Health:

The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P.

Health Canada

Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture

Postal Locator: 0906C

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9

 

CCFP

The College of Family Physicians of Canada

2630 Skymark Avenue

Mississauga, Ontario

L4W 5A4

 

Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

College Administration

Office of the Chief Executive Officer

Chief Executive Officer

M. Andrew Padmos, MD, FRCPC

Tel: 613-730-6205

Fax: 613-730-8250

E-mail: ceo@royalcollege.ca

for College governance, administrative, and health and public policy matters.

 

 

STEPHEN HARPER

pm@pm.gc.ca

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa

K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900

 

Rubbish. Midllevels are very helpful to the system.

[mildoc1]

Rubbish. The public has a right to choose their providers.

[UTPEOPLE]

Rubbish. The public has a right to choose their providers.

 

True, but there has to be clear and non-misleading disclosure. Wanna bet that the NP and naturopathic doctors will end up claiming equivalency or even superiority to medical doctors (like some naturopathic doctors claim)? It is only a "choice" if the public is made well aware that while NP can offer something important, they do not have the same training as MD doctors.

 

I'm all for NPs having special privileges, as long as they are in areas underserviced by FPs, but even this is unlikely, because of the slippery slope..

[mildoc1]

True, but there has to be clear and non-misleading disclosure. Wanna bet that the NP and naturopathic doctors will end up claiming equivalency or even superiority to medical doctors (like some naturopathic doctors claim)? It is only a "choice" if the public is made well aware that while NP can offer something important, they do not have the same training as MD doctors.

 

I'm all for NPs having special privileges, as long as they are in areas underserviced by FPs, but even this is unlikely, because of the slippery slope..

 

I have yet to see a NP claim equivalency to a physician. In fact, when I was having problems with my first pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) she was the one who said I'm sorry, this is beyond my expertise and I'm referring you to a specialist.

Why do you think NPs should only work at underserviced areas?

I can't really comment on naturopaths...I think they're kind of scary.

[UTPEOPLE]

I have yet to see a NP claim equivalency to a physician. In fact, when I was having problems with my first pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) she was the one who said I'm sorry, this is beyond my expertise and I'm referring you to a specialist.

Why do you think NPs should only work at underserviced areas?

I can't really comment on naturopaths...I think they're kind of scary.

 

Well, the very fact that NP are clamouring for similar medical privileges as FPs suggests 1 of 2 things. 1. The NPs consider themselves an adequate replacements for FPs. Or 2. The NPs recognize that as there arent enough FP's in certain areas and are stepping up to the plate (something is better than nothing). If 2 is the case, then in urban areas, where the on average better trained physicians can satisfy demand, it makes no sense for the government to grant NP additional privileges. However, even this is dicey, because if we have NP who can have doctor privileges in rural areas, the urban NP will soon clamor for equivalent treatment...

 

P/S. wouldnt pre-eclampsia be beyond the expertise of most FPs even?

[mrnursing]

Well, the very fact that NP are clamouring for similar medical privileges as FPs suggests 1 of 2 things. 1. The NPs consider themselves an adequate replacements for FPs. Or 2. The NPs recognize that as there arent enough FP's in certain areas and are stepping up to the plate (something is better than nothing). If 2 is the case, then in urban areas, where the on average better trained physicians can satisfy demand, it makes no sense for the government to grant NP additional privileges. However, even this is dicey, because if we have NP who can have doctor privileges in rural areas, the urban NP will soon clamor for equivalent treatment...

 

P/S. wouldnt pre-eclampsia be beyond the expertise of most FPs even?

 

I don't think that they will. I've seen NPs in action in both hospital and in the community setting. They know their limitations in knowledge and scope of practice.

In the community setting, NPs took on the less complicated cases, while the FPs took the complicated and difficult cases. They were under the supervision of the physicians.

[UTPEOPLE]

I don't think that they will. I've seen NPs in action in both hospital and in the community setting. They know their limitations in knowledge and scope of practice.

In the community setting, NPs took on the less complicated cases, while the FPs took the complicated and difficult cases. They were under the supervision of the physicians.

 

that would be ideal, but since a major reason for giving NP greater powers is that there arent enough FP's to go around, there could be issues in more rural areas, where there are less likely to be Fps to supervise. And right now, though officially they might get along, I have met a few nurses and Nps (though in the minority) who resent the extra prestige given to MD and consider themselves basically equal (at least from what I could glean via small talk). Thats the dangerous part.

[lostintime]

If they know the scope of their practice, then why are they fighting for more? It's just like a teacher's strike~ not all the members will agree with what they're fighting for, but that doesn't mean if something is passed, they will all benefit from the consequences. Even if you know individual NP's who don't act this way, the fact that they collectively as an organization want more rights says something.

[mildoc1]

And doctors have the duty to protect the lay public from charlatans who would endanger them!

 

LMAO! Good luck with your witch hunt, buddy.

[AdamP]

a good post on the matter from the god

 

http://premed101.com/forums/showpost.php?p=252420&postcount=15

[supafield]

MD's took their place because they offered better healthcare than the other competing professions way back in wild west days of healthcare (Flexner Report days).

 

If the government lets these professions in and they start killing people, they'll be out even faster and the people making these decisions will be held accountable. However, if NP's and ND's offer decent primary care at low costs, the government would be stupid not to use them in a publicly funded system. The pilot stand alone NP clinic in Sudbury was a big success and that's lead to more in Ontario. As this progresses, outcomes will be measured closely.

 

It's up to MD's to offer the best care and outcomes at a reasonable price if they want to keep their scope. It beats trying to lobby and defend every inch of their scope tooth and nail pushing the idea that this inter-professional utopia that seems to get emphasized in MD curricula is merely a facade or only possible if physicians are king of the hill.

[lostintime]

How long did this study run for? I'm worried more about long term results, i.e. 10-15 years down the road. It's not enough to say, oh 1 year later, all the patients of the NP survived and were okay. Missing things sometimes doesn't show up exactly tomorrow.

[supafield]

How long did this study run for? I'm worried more about long term results, i.e. 10-15 years down the road. It's not enough to say, oh 1 year later, all the patients of the NP survived and were okay. Missing things sometimes doesn't show up exactly tomorrow.

 

It's a good point, the concept is still very new. I can only imagine as the time progresses, you'll see more and more outcome studies from the initial pilot program.

 

I'm just very weary of the model of lobby lobby lobby. If rural Ontario had a sufficient # of physicians, I would bet none of these NP clinics would have ever got off the ground.

 

There are holes in our system though, and I think time would be better used advancing the MD profession rather than fighting to keep the other professions away.

 

Then again that's just my own opinion. Even as someone very biased towards the interests of doctors and as someone who has invested a large portion of my life trying to become one, I get the feeling that the groups representing physicians (CMA/OMA) seem to be glorified lobby groups that only care about the healthcare of Canadian's if doctors are at the top of the pecking order.

[seeking1]

Everyone remember that they are starting to open more med schools and satellite campuses, with a number of spots reserved for potential GPs and family docs. Hell, thats Waterloo's McMaster satellite, in a nutshell.

[Swift Fox]

I agree. It is time to give those who wish to practice outside their scope a good kicking. I emailed the professional organizations in which I am a member on this issue several weeks ago.

 

 

Good post.

[Guest success100]

They are, if they stay within their scope of expertise. Unfortunately, midlevel and naturopath organizations want to expand their scope of expertise to dangerous levels in the guise of remedying the primary care shortage.

 

Don't be a fool. Stand up for public safety, and your profession!

 

The fact that they want to expand their scope of expertise is not gonna ruin the system and be "too dangerous".

 

Just look at Psychologists in the U.S.,they wanted to do more procedures and be able to prescribe medications,just like Psychiatrists,some states voted yes,still,they didn't kill anybody with wrong medications.

 

I must agree that they should not get "too much" freedom,THAT would destroy the beat if you know what i mean,but expanding their scope a bit is definitely good,since it will decrease the weight that physicians have already.

[seeking1]

It's funny that people have voted this, and the other thread about midlevels, a one-star. How many midlevels scour this forum, anyway?

 

This is precisely why midlevels win, and doctors lose. Midlevels will make their voices heard. Doctors won't.

 

Um, most people here aren't doctors yet....

 

Also, do you really think the CMA is that flimsy on issues like these? Hell, they are effectively the most powerful union around.

 

Never mind that British naturopaths, chiropractors and homeopaths are facing a sh*tstorm in the UK. All because they were making health claims they couldn't back up in court....

[apache]

Some medicine's based on a lot of hocus-pocus too, although admittedly not nearly as much as naturopaths. You have to remember there's a strong publication bias towards western medicine because thats where the $ is, and pharma runs 90 percent of our trials. If someone thinks they can derive benefit from a naturopath, why not let them?

 

I do agree with you though in that we need to turn into a FM producing machine, and not publically fund chiro's and naturopaths (although i even go to a chiropractors, i think of him as my back cracker, lol)!

 

They are, if they stay within their scope of expertise. Unfortunately, midlevel and naturopath organizations want to expand their scope of expertise to dangerous levels in the guise of remedying the primary care shortage.

 

Don't be a fool. Stand up for public safety, and your profession!

[apache]

Psychologists should be able to write scripts for ssri's for sure. Older antidepressents, barbituates, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, beta blockers, naltrexone and a bunch else have a bit too many dangerous interactions/potential risks that need monitoring for me.

 

I don't see to many psychologists who know how to manage neuroleptic induced malignant disorder, rebound seizures, hyperglycemia, serotonin syndrome, steven-johnsons rash, respiratory depression and other fun problems that can occur with psych's more delicate drugs.

 

So I agree, limited privileges are great! The key is limited!

 

The fact that they want to expand their scope of expertise is not gonna ruin the system and be "too dangerous".

 

Just look at Psychologists in the U.S.,they wanted to do more procedures and be able to prescribe medications,just like Psychiatrists,some states voted yes,still,they didn't kill anybody with wrong medications.

 

I must agree that they should not get "too much" freedom,THAT would destroy the beat if you know what i mean,but expanding their scope a bit is definitely good,since it will decrease the weight that physicians have already.

[apache]

the problem is that were often charlatans, many things we do are based on no clinical evidence, these procedures put peoples lives at risk plus cost money. I'll say that we're way better than any other health professionals at being evidence based, but sometimes our approach isn't comprehensive and sometimes harmful.

 

I agree with you, mostly, but people have the right to choose who they want to see, the only thing is, if it's not as evidence based, i'd prefer they pay out of pocket.

 

And doctors have the duty to protect the lay public from charlatans who would endanger them!