Hello there dear colleagues,

I've been one of the faculty team teaching the ND Philosophy courses at Bastyr,
on and off for the past 10 years or so. This summer, for the first time in about
a dozen years, I'm also supervising a shift in the teaching clinic (an NM-AOM
dual shift).

Our clinic progress notes have a little box on the last page listing a version
of the naturopathic principles (and I remember years ago that it took quite a
long discussion to decide how to incorporate a reminder of NM practice
philosophy into the clinic paperwork).

But, I'm surprised to find that the little list of principles isn't all that
useful to me in terms of case discussion, or as far as what seems pertinent
(rather than just being busywork) in my student clinicians' chart notes.

Over the years, it has become clear to me that our principles of practice are
not exclusive to us - our interpretations might be quite different from that of
practitioners with different training, but, for instance, it seems like everyone
really does want to "treat the cause" - though we can have very very different
notions of what the cause is. Even the VMN is something we share with every
vitalist tradition, in spirit if not in particular language.

So, while I do rely on the principles of practice, and my students and I touch
on them in our discussions of what's going on with our patients and what is
needs to be addressed, the model that seems most useful and comprehensive - and
that is most distinctive to me about the naturopathic approach (and I realize
I've been very influenced by Drs. Zeff and Snider) - is the naturopathic
therapeutic order. It's in talking about therapeutic order that we end up
thinking through how we are considering determinants of health, how we're
supporting the Vis, teaching healthy life-ways, treating pathology; how we're
treating the whole person - or not, how we're addressing prevention and
wellness, or not. Etc.

I'm curious to hear how philosophy has been articulated and used for guidance in
the other teaching clinics, or with other supervisors at the Bastyr clinic, and
what your thoughts and experiences are about the most effective approaches to
teaching/learning philosophy in the clinical setting?

Thank you!
Christy

Christy Lee-Engel, ND, LAc
cell: 206.399.0868
http://oneskywellness.com

We're having trouble finding the prior moderator to this group so that new
members can join.  So, go to the yahoo group theNDgathering if you are
interested in helping guide the Gathering forward!  I look forward to seeing
y'all there!

Hey Kim,

There is a Gathering being planned for next year!  The dates will be November
6-8th, 2009 at National College in portland.  We are working on a formal
announcement as well as finalizing speakers.

Luke Gonzales, NCNM 5th year student.
--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, Kim Palka <mkpalka@...> wrote:
>
> Guess I missed something....I haven't seen anything from William? 
>
> Jim (Sensenig) and I were just recently talking about whether there was a
Gathering being planned for this year.  Hope I can find out more about that.
>
> Everyone enjoy their day!
>
> Kim Palka, ND
>

Thanks William this is a very necessary step for us all!
I'm incredibly passionate about the Gathering and looking forward to the
conversation...

Serron

They are going to vote in a week and a half?  How did you know?  Govtrack lists
the bill as in committee, which is where many bills stay for a long long time,
so I am curious about the voting in a week and a half?

thanks!
jaime


-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Carol Anne spooner
Sent: Sat 3/28/2009 10:30 AM
Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (bill HR
875).outlaws organic farming voting within 2 wks!





Has anyone heard about this yet? I just recieved this and have not read the bill
I did listen to some You Tube videos-- if what they are saying is correct, this
is quite frightening... Monsanto is reportedly behind this.This Bill is
a  threat to the entire holistic community.

Snopes and other sources indicate this is real.
 
I suggest we all lobby all Senetors and Congressmen in Washington DC, everyday
and let them know we willl not rehire (vote) for them ever again if they vote
yes on  HR 875.
 
The following link
http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/9661579/14387954/598245/0/ is a list of the
U.S. senators with their contact info.

Let them know  that by talking to our family, friends, neiughbors, and our
communities you will do everything in your power to see they are never elected
for anything again - not even dog catcher-- without giving your name and
address. Short, unnamed calls to all officals from accross the nation could stop
this as in the past this approach has worked for regular citizens concerning
Bushes interest in going to war against Iran a few  summers ago. It would work
because it would present as an organized approach. We all pay National Taxes.
They work for us regardless of the juristiction/ region they represent. We could
stop this by spending 10-15 minutes on it a day if we ALL do this. They will
want your name and address. You don't have to give it to them- giving it to them
decreases the effect.
 
It is possible to get all Senate and Congress numbers on line.



The US House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill that
will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous rush to get this
into law within the next 2 weeks before people realize what is happening.Main
backer and lobbyist is Monsanto - chemical and genetic engineering giant
corporation (and Cargill, ADM, and about 35 other related agri-giants). This
bill will require organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect
sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to "make sure there is no danger to
the public food supply".
 
This will include backyard gardens that grow food only for a family and not for
sales.
If this passes then NO more heirloom clean seeds but only Monsanto
genetically altered seeds that are now showing up with unexpected diseases in
humans.
> There are videos on the subject:
           http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/9661579/14387954/598242/0/
           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWVkTU1s1E
The name on this outrageous food plan is:
 Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (bill HR 875).

PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO ALL CONCERNED ON YOUR MAILING LISTS & CALL YOUR SENATE
REPRESENTETIVES TODAY!
 Get on that phone and burn up the wires. Get anyone else you can to do the
same thing. The House and Senate WILL pass this if they are not massively
threatened with loss of their position....they only fear your voice and your
vote.

AN easy thing to do is go to
http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/9661579/14387954/598244/0/

Put in your zip and it will give you your congressperson and how to get in touch
with them. When you call their office someone will answer the phone, politely
and respectfully just tell them that you are calling to express your views on HR
875. Tell them your views,I suggest you not give your name and address. The aid
will  pass your comments along to the congressperson.
Again, The following link
http://pr1.netatlantic.com/t/9661579/14387954/598245/0/ is a list of the
U.S. senators with their contact info.

Thank you all for taking such quick action on this important threat to our
health and wellness.





Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Find out more.

dear all,

I've been following this conversation and enjoying it very much.  Thanks to
everyone for contributing important bits and pieces.  What struck me recently
is that in talking about what words to use, or how we define ourselves, what
we are REALLY talking about is our relationship with the patient/client.  What
I am sensing is that Wiliam and others want to or already have established a
different kind of relationship with their patients than is commonly seen in
conventional medicine.

The Doctor/Patient relationship is a topic I've spent a lot of time thinking
about and discussing in our phiosophy club at NCNM.  It seems to me a topic
that is one of the most important for a naturopathic physician and yet one
that receives little "work" in the education i have received thus far. 
Different
doctors will choose to work with patients in different ways but I hope that we
can all agree that illness almost always has at its root a spirtual/emotional
component.  So far in my clinical experience (albeit limited) I see that as
Naturopaths we carry the same fear/ignorance of the emotions that we see in
conventional medicine.  A patient will begin to express emotions that are
central to the case (in my opinion) and we either roll over them without any
acknowledgement, or we otherwise disrupt the flow of energy coming from
the patient.  We fail to make contact with the patient to reach them in a real
way and let them know that we are here and listening to them.  It seems to
me that even though our relationship with the patient has a Natural structure,
it is the ability to LISTEN that really differentiates us.  This ability to
listen
creates a feeling of shared energy with the patient that is essential it seems.

In listening we can find the thread of the case that leads us closer to the
cause, the root of illness in its multidimensionality.  To listen as a physician
I
think it is true that we must maintain our own identity and not meld into
"best friends" as Dr. Morstein says, and also to allow healing to happen
through us (the vis) as Dr. Zeff says.

I guess what I'm saying is that within this discussion of words what we are
really talking about is relationship.  and the question i put forth is: What
qualities and characteristics should our relationships have to allow medicine
to work best?

Luke, NCNM
---NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com wrote ---
> Hello, all,
>
> I don't think we can rely solely on semantics to define if we have or
> haven't established a partnership with our patients.  In my private
> practice in Montana, I was Dr. Mona and folks were my patients, but
> down here, due to me being part of the SCNM it morphed into Dr.
> Morstein, although in my own private practice, some folks call me
> "Mona" or "Dr. Mona" and it's all the same to me.  However, they are
> still my "patients".  The energy and flow and experience WITH my
> patients has never changed although the terminology of my name did.
>
> I don't really believe that patients wish to be fully on an equal
> status with their physician. Illness and sickness are scary; people
> oftentimes come to us already having been sick for years and having
> failed to recover on numerous treatment plans, both allopathic and at
> times alternative.  I think having a slightly vertical relationship is
> invaluable, as they are looking for me to find the obstacle to cure, to
> direct them to medical tests, dietary regimens, efficacious
> supplementation. Heck, that's what they are paying me for!   They WANT
> direction; the NEED direction.  I myself didn't want a "best friend"
> when I sought medical care; I wanted someone who knew what they were
> doing, what I needed to do, and directed me to achieve those goals.
> Patients need someone confident to know what is going on and tell them
> how they can get better.  We don't want them to turn over all their
> power to us, true, but we need them to trust us enough to do the tests
> we suggest, and follow our educated and experienced advice.
>
> The partnership is formed throughout the doctor/patient relationship in
> many ways outside of semantics, and whether someone is Dr. Kim or Dr.
> Morstein, or you are working with a "partner" or a "patient" shouldn't
> matter one tiny bit.  The partnership is based on treating patients
> with respect; basing a therapeutic regimen particularly on Docere, so
> all aspects of it are fully explained to the patient's understanding,
> giving them time to ask clarifying questions if necessary;  engaging in
> compromise with the patient though not to the extent the therapy will
> no longer be effective (for example, if a food allergy test comes back
> exhibiting leaky gut and the patient is reactive to 40 foods, obviously
> it makes no sense to remove to demand the patient remove all those
> foods from their diet--can the patient remove the top three, perhaps
> while we heal up the gut?); working effectively within the patient's
> financial capabilities;  understanding their struggles to make change
> and supporting them on their journey no matter how fast or slow their
> commitment to heal is going;  and so forth.
>
> We shouldn't get too caught up in whether we are Dr. First Name or Dr.
> Last Name. In my experience, it doesn't matter, except to the doctor.
> We should simply ensure we are good doctors, and treat patients with
> respect, integrity and compassion, that we act decisively and strive to
> have patients follow our knowledgeable directions, but we can
> compromise and be supportive.  That will ensure the partnership
> develops.    Semantics is always less important that the actual human
> interaction.
>
> Mona Morstein, ND
> Mesa, AZ
>
>
--- End of quote ---

William,
I apologize about forgetting my name and will be more mindful of this
in the future when cutting and pasting from Word.

I had an interesting conversation today with an elder at a Unitarian
church I have been semi-involved with in the past. We spoke at length
about the fact that, since they didn't acknowledge any definite deity
or had an stable minister, they were often considered a "social group"
at best and a "cult" at worst. In other words, they were an
"alternative" spiritual option and therefore had difficulty recruiting
from the larger, mostly conservative community. One reason for this
was the lack of a recognized structure within which the new member
could feel comfortable making the transition into an often radically
different way of the thinking.

Likewise, as communal or egalitarian as I would like to be as an ND,
there are constraints on how far I can pushed that based on the
culture and community I find myself in. A portion of that is simply
hospitality, which is excellently discussed in the book Setting the
Table, by award-winning restaurateur Danny Meyer. But as I referenced
in my last email, there is the larger issue of therapeutic authority.
When you are absolutely certain that your patient does not need, and
will be harmed, by being drugged into oblivion for their grief, or
family of origin issue, or "ADHD", what is going to give you the
leverage to convince your patient to agree with you when their spouse,
parent, MD, therapist, social circle, or the media is against you?

As an ND, you are generally not given the therapeutic authority of an
MD and if you happen to be a petite, female clinician as is the case
with my wife, it is even harder. Therefore, I believe that one should
consider not only what you are comfortable with, in terms of
structuring your practice, but what is your client/patient comfortable
with, particularly when you are first starting out. Like the church I
mentioned above, we are often introducing the client/patient to
radically new ways of thinking about health. They require a structure
that both allows them to make that transition and allows them to be
comfortable trusting what their ND is telling them. In other words, to
be a doctor, there needs to be a way for therapeutic authority to flow
successfully. The main reason I always refer to my wife as "Doctor"
when I am in the clinic dealing with patients and never by her first
name is exactly to support this kind of flow.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in this regard. But I
would argue that referring to your patients as clients in your
promotional material or in your discussions opens up a possible point
of confusion. Realtors have clients, car salespeople have clients.
This does not given them the authority to make a diagnosis or put
someone on a detox protocol. Also, if your patients come to you
thinking of themselves as patients and they are looking for a doctor,
would not referring to them as clients give them pause? Might they not
wonder if the practitioner was not comfortable handling the
responsibility of being a doctor, since the practitioner is not
referring to them like other doctors or as they see themselves? Might
they not wonder if being a client means they will not receive medical
care but rather health advice or peripheral care that one might
receive from a nutritionist or a massage therapist?

Ultimately, this discussion is academic and probably not very useful
to you because it is a conversation you need to have with your
clients/patients/people/whatever. I would encourage you to do this.
When we were deciding whether to buy a new clinic building across the
river from our current location, we were worried that we would lose a
significant number of our patients. The bridge is packed in rush hour
and generally the drive for some people would be 10-15 minutes longer.
Not being able to decide, we asked our patients (doh!) by giving them
the opportunity to fill out a survey. Overwhelmingly, they were
supportive of the move. We were amazed. It turns out that the parking
at our old location was terrible, something we were unaware of. The
take home message for me was that, in medicine as in life, sometimes
only the empirical option works. Sometimes, you just have to ask.

Gary Piscopo, ND, LAc

> Re: Patients vs Clients
> Posted by: "William Franklin" wfranklin_4@yahoo.com wfranklin_4
> Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:30 pm (PST)
> A quick reminder, could everyone please remember to sign your post with
> your name?
>
> Thanks for this piece "swanoir". For the record, my issue isn't with being
> called a doctor or not, that will happen however it's supposed to. My
> original post was around, how I wanted to see the people coming in to see
> me. And, when I looked at the actual definition of the term "patient" and
> saw how clearly it defined what most people experience when they go to a
> doctor, I first wondered "which came first, the definition or the
> experience?" and second, do I really want people coming to me in that
> capacity. So, my preference is to use the term "clients" when I write about
> them in my brochures for example and speak of them as a collective group.
> It's been very interesting to see where this conversation has gone and to
> "hear" all the different perspectives. Mostly, it's great to have some
> dialogue on here again. Thanks Y'all!
>

William,
I apologize about forgetting my name and will be more mindful of this
in the future when cutting and pasting from Word.

I had an interesting conversation today with an elder at a Unitarian
church I have been semi-involved with in the past. We spoke at length
about the fact that, since they didn't acknowledge any definite deity
or had an stable minister, they were often considered a "social group"
at best and a "cult" at worst. In other words, they were an
"alternative" spiritual option and therefore had difficulty recruiting
from the larger, mostly conservative community. One reason for this
was the lack of a recognized structure within which the new member
could feel comfortable making the transition into an often radically
different way of the thinking.

Likewise, as communal or egalitarian as I would like to be as an ND,
there are constraints on how far I can pushed that based on the
culture and community I find myself in. A portion of that is simply
hospitality, which is excellently discussed in the book Setting the
Table, by award-winning restaurateur Danny Meyer. But as I referenced
in my last email, there is the larger issue of therapeutic authority.
When you are absolutely certain that your patient does not need, and
will be harmed, by being drugged into oblivion for their grief, or
family of origin issue, or "ADHD", what is going to give you the
leverage to convince your patient to agree with you when their spouse,
parent, MD, therapist, social circle, or the media is against you?

As an ND, you are generally not given the therapeutic authority of an
MD and if you happen to be a petite, female clinician as is the case
with my wife, it is even harder. Therefore, I believe that one should
consider not only what you are comfortable with, in terms of
structuring your practice, but what is your client/patient comfortable
with, particularly when you are first starting out. Like the church I
mentioned above, we are often introducing the client/patient to
radically new ways of thinking about health. They require a structure
that both allows them to make that transition and allows them to be
comfortable trusting what their ND is telling them. In other words, to
be a doctor, there needs to be a way for therapeutic authority to flow
successfully. The main reason I always refer to my wife as "Doctor"
when I am in the clinic dealing with patients and never by her first
name is exactly to support this kind of flow.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in this regard. But I
would argue that referring to your patients as clients in your
promotional material or in your discussions opens up a possible point
of confusion. Realtors have clients, car salespeople have clients.
This does not given them the authority to make a diagnosis or put
someone on a detox protocol. Also, if your patients come to you
thinking of themselves as patients and they are looking for a doctor,
would not referring to them as clients give them pause? Might they not
wonder if the practitioner was not comfortable handling the
responsibility of being a doctor, since the practitioner is not
referring to them like other doctors or as they see themselves? Might
they not wonder if being a client means they will not receive medical
care but rather health advice or peripheral care that one might
receive from a nutritionist or a massage therapist?

Ultimately, this discussion is academic and probably not very useful
to you because it is a conversation you need to have with your
clients/patients/people/whatever. I would encourage you to do this.
When we were deciding whether to buy a new clinic building across the
river from our current location, we were worried that we would lose a
significant number of our patients. The bridge is packed in rush hour
and generally the drive for some people would be 10-15 minutes longer.
Not being able to decide, we asked our patients (doh!) by giving them
the opportunity to fill out a survey. Overwhelmingly, they were
supportive of the move. We were amazed. It turns out that the parking
at our old location was terrible, something we were unaware of. The
take home message for me was that, in medicine as in life, sometimes
only the empirical option works. Sometimes, you just have to ask.


Gary Piscopo, ND, LAc






>  Re: Patients vs Clients
> Posted by: "William Franklin" wfranklin_4@...   wfranklin_4
>  Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:30 pm (PST)
>  A quick reminder, could everyone please remember to sign your post with
> your name?
>
>  Thanks for this piece "swanoir". For the record, my issue isn't with being
> called a doctor or not, that will happen however it's supposed to. My
> original post was around, how I wanted to see the people coming in to see
> me. And, when I looked at the actual definition of the term "patient" and
> saw how clearly it defined what most people experience when they go to a
> doctor, I first wondered "which came first, the definition or the
> experience?" and second, do I really want people coming to me in that
> capacity. So, my preference is to use the term "clients" when I write about
> them in my brochures for example and speak of them as a collective group.
> It's been very interesting to see where this conversation has gone and to
> "hear" all the different perspectives. Mostly, it's great to have some
> dialogue on here again. Thanks Y'all!
>

In a message dated 11/17/2007 11:33:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wfranklin_4@yahoo.com writes:

I personally, do not believe that my role as a physician is to heal
or to become a healer. I see that role as being taken by Nature and
my role is simply to inform my clients how to facilitate healing, to
be an enzyme for the Vis Medicatrix Naturae to use. As a part of
Nature, I recognize my ability to heal myself and I recognize your
ability to do the same for yourself.

For me, this speaks to the concept of not giving my own energy to my
clients, but instead to cultivate myself as a "hollow bone" so that
energy moves through me rather than from me. Otherwise, as I've been
warned by my Reiki teacher and many others, I will quickly exhaust my
own reserves and end up worse off than those who came to me for help.

How do you see your role as physician? Do you heal? Are you a
healer?

I am a healer.  People come to me for healing.  At best, as you point out, God works healing through me, in concert with the person who comes to me.  We form a relationship, the purpose of which is to facilitate healing.  I am definitely a part of this relationship, and I must be conscious and careful not to get used up in it.  But I am not simply the vessel through which healing pours.  I am actively engaged in the process.  My energy is involved.  My spirit is involved.  My mind is involved.  I study it.  I learn constantly more and new ways to facilitate healing.  I recognize the vis medicatrix naturae.  I am not the power of healing.  I do not generate healing.  I am an instrument of the vis, a healer. 

 

Jared Zeff, ND

---

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

In her new book, "Eat, Pray, Love," Elizabeth Gilbert describe a point
in her experiences in India where she is frustrated by a part of her
spiritual practice having to do with the Gurugita. For some unknown
reason, chanting this hymn really annoys her. She finds it to be
torturous. She seeks out a monk for guidance, who tells her she
doesn't have to chant the Gurugita, but that it is designed to purify
and burn out all her junk. In fact, he comments that, given how
reactive she is to the Gurugita, maybe she should continue just on
that fact alone. Of course later she has a significant breakthrough
because she does persist. She writes, "[I] bowed flat on my face in
gratitude to my God, to the revolutionary power of love, to myself, to
my Guru and to my nephew – briefly understanding on a molecular level
(not an intellectual level) that there was no difference whatsoever
between any of these words or any of these ideas or any of these
people."

Likewise, I was reactive to this whole issue of doctor vs patient. As
I persisted, I came to see that my struggle with concepts and terms
like "patient", "client", "doctor", and "healer" was more about me
than about what happened in the treatment room. It was a Rorschach
exercise for my ego, a necessary step in my evolution perhaps, but
largely unimportant to the people I worked with. At first, mindful of
the past excesses of allopathic medicine, I used a more
person-centered, Rogerian approach. And it was spectacularly
unsuccessful. It wasn't me, it wasn't how I work, and it didn't honor
my particular resonance when it came to healing.

As I explored deeper, I saw that the real issue centered around
responsibility. Whatever I call my patients or myself paled in
comparison the question of how responsibility was going to be handled
and how to direct therapeutic authority. Notice I didn't say "direct
healing" since that responsibility lies with a larger Source. But
neither the Vis nor the patient are responsible for certain structural
elements that need to be taken care of (making appointments, ordering
lab tests, dispensing supplements, giving homework assignments, etc.).
That is where being a clinician differs perhaps from being a healer.

What provided a breakthrough for me is addressing my own fear and
loathing of authority and power. Once I was able to firmly plant
myself in the place of service, and trusted in what came through
within that space, most of these issues resolved for me. My focus
naturally came to rest on honoring the person rather than getting the
titles correct. When I greet my patients, I introduce myself in a way
that intuitively makes sense at the moment and they are free to call
me whatever makes sense to them. When I think of them, I think of them
in terms of what is required, what I need to do, how best to approach
the situation. In the best of those moments, there is no division or
separation between me and the people I am working with. We are simply
caring… incarnate.



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDPhilosophy/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDPhilosophy/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:NDPhilosophy-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:NDPhilosophy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NDPhilosophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I have to say it has been interesting reading everyone's replies to
this  question.  Here is mine.  There needs to be distinction between
my personal, professional and other aspects of my life. My kids call
me Dad.  My friends call me Tom, Tomdizzle, Big Tom, etc.  At church
they call me Bro Jemison.  My wife calls me... on second thought never
mind.  When I graduate my patients will call me Dr Tom, Dr J, Dr
Jemison, Doc, etc.  I know for me it will be important to have that
distinction in my life.  In our profession, when there are
so many impostors in unlicensed states especially, being called Dr So
and So is very important.  Being called Doctor demands a little
respect and expectation.  I don't call my professors at school by
their personal names, I use their professional names.  I just know for
me, when patients call me Dr (after I graduate of course) whether they
know it or not, they at least acknowledge my efforts to get through
all this schooling.
Also, while I am at it, clients take advice and guidance.  Patients
receive medicine and medical procedures.

Tom

In her new book, "Eat, Pray, Love," Elizabeth Gilbert describe a point
in her experiences in India where she is frustrated by a part of her
spiritual practice having to do with the Gurugita. For some unknown
reason, chanting this hymn really annoys her. She finds it to be
torturous. She seeks out a monk for guidance, who tells her she
doesn't have to chant the Gurugita, but that it is designed to purify
and burn out all her junk. In fact, he comments that, given how
reactive she is to the Gurugita, maybe she should continue just on
that fact alone. Of course later she has a significant breakthrough
because she does persist. She writes, "[I] bowed flat on my face in
gratitude to my God, to the revolutionary power of love, to myself, to
my Guru and to my nephew – briefly understanding on a molecular level
(not an intellectual level) that there was no difference whatsoever
between any of these words or any of these ideas or any of these
people."

Likewise, I was reactive to this whole issue of doctor vs patient. As
I persisted, I came to see that my struggle with concepts and terms
like "patient", "client", "doctor", and "healer" was more about me
than about what happened in the treatment room. It was a Rorschach
exercise for my ego, a necessary step in my evolution perhaps, but
largely unimportant to the people I worked with. At first, mindful of
the past excesses of allopathic medicine, I used a more
person-centered, Rogerian approach. And it was spectacularly
unsuccessful. It wasn't me, it wasn't how I work, and it didn't honor
my particular resonance when it came to healing.

As I explored deeper, I saw that the real issue centered around
responsibility. Whatever I call my patients or myself paled in
comparison the question of how responsibility was going to be handled
and how to direct therapeutic authority. Notice I didn't say "direct
healing" since that responsibility lies with a larger Source. But
neither the Vis nor the patient are responsible for certain structural
elements that need to be taken care of (making appointments, ordering
lab tests, dispensing supplements, giving homework assignments, etc.).
That is where being a clinician differs perhaps from being a healer.

What provided a breakthrough for me is addressing my own fear and
loathing of authority and power. Once I was able to firmly plant
myself in the place of service, and trusted in what came through
within that space, most of these issues resolved for me. My focus
naturally came to rest on honoring the person rather than getting the
titles correct. When I greet my patients, I introduce myself in a way
that intuitively makes sense at the moment and they are free to call
me whatever makes sense to them. When I think of them, I think of them
in terms of what is required, what I need to do, how best to approach
the situation. In the best of those moments, there is no division or
separation between me and the people I am working with. We are simply
caring… incarnate.

hi all~

i believe that people heal themselves, and that they do so in the presence of a
compassionate witness.  it is my endeavor to remember that i (as we all are) am
a pure center of awareness, an unmoved witness, and hold both the space and the
vision that we all already are, and have always been whole.

i am also good at interpreting labs!

Rev. Karin Taylor, Naturopathic Intern, ND 5 (NCNM)
Craniosacral Therapeutics
"Needleless" 5 Element Acupuncture

The human being has two purposes in life:  one is to develop her creative
expression to the utmost, and the other is to put that in the service of
something greater than herself.
~Kabir Helminski



-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com on behalf of wfranklin_4
Sent: Sat 11/17/2007 11:32 AM
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NDPhilosophy] A story, a comment, a question

Once upon a time, in ancient Egypt, a wealthy man was dying. He
called his 3 sons together to discuss how his wealth would be
distributed among them after he had passed.

His wealth was measured in camels, of which he had 17. He decided to
leave to his first born son half of his camel herd, to his second
born he left 1/3 and to his youngest he left 1/9. Well this number
left the sons unsure of what to do!

A wise man, hearing the dilemma of the brothers, offered them his
camel so that they would have an even number. So the eldest received
9 camels, the middle son 6, and the youngest 2. THe wise man then
left with his camel as there was still one left over.

And THAT is how enzymes work!!

Thank you to Dr. Betty for sharing that great story at the
Naturopathic Gathering this year. And it brings to mind, for me, a
branch of a previous conversation on this board.

I personally, do not believe that my role as a physician is to heal
or to become a healer. I see that role as being taken by Nature and
my role is simply to inform my clients how to facilitate healing, to
be an enzyme for the Vis Medicatrix Naturae to use. As a part of
Nature, I recognize my ability to heal myself and I recognize your
ability to do the same for yourself.

For me, this speaks to the concept of not giving my own energy to my
clients, but instead to cultivate myself as a "hollow bone" so that
energy moves through me rather than from me. Otherwise, as I've been
warned by my Reiki teacher and many others, I will quickly exhaust my
own reserves and end up worse off than those who came to me for help.

How do you see your role as physician? Do you heal? Are you a
healer?

Wow... Kim I really love your intension's. I might borrow that phrase-
if it's ok with you. I have always had that intension and I've even
verbalized it to my patients- however integrating it with your
business mentality and website is also a fabulous idea.
Thanks!!!
~Leila

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, Kim Palka <mkpalka@...> wrote:
>
> I've been considering this question as a new grad starting to put my
practice together.  I, too, am uncomfortable with the 'patient' word.
  It seems to me that people have to be invested in their health and
lifestyle and I'd like to encourage more of a partnership feeling.
So, my website draft tentatively tells people how to "join my
practice" rather "become a patient."
>
> The power of the mind is awesome and I believe the words I choose to
set the tone of my practice can help predispose us to success.  If we
join together, we're a team.  That means we both have a responsibility
to work to reach our goals.  We can start from the beginning with that
understanding and commitment and our efforts in the same direction
will be enhanced.
>
> I appreciate Greg's comments and agree.  People are in different
places as to what they need from their "doctor."  I hope as I begin my
practice I can show people a different way to experience medicine and
doctors - and with that new experience they'll also have a new
experience of health and wellbeing, regardless of what we call it.
>
> Hope everyone enjoys our official opportunity for gratitude this
week.  I have much to be thankful for, not the least of which is now
officially belonging to this awesome profession as a graduate!
>
> Kim Palka
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail.
See how.
>

Hello, all,

I don't think we can rely solely on semantics to define if we have or
haven't established a partnership with our patients.  In my private
practice in Montana, I was Dr. Mona and folks were my patients, but
down here, due to me being part of the SCNM it morphed into Dr.
Morstein, although in my own private practice, some folks call me
"Mona" or "Dr. Mona" and it's all the same to me.  However, they are
still my "patients".  The energy and flow and experience WITH my
patients has never changed although the terminology of my name did.

I don't really believe that patients wish to be fully on an equal
status with their physician. Illness and sickness are scary; people
oftentimes come to us already having been sick for years and having
failed to recover on numerous treatment plans, both allopathic and at
times alternative.  I think having a slightly vertical relationship is
invaluable, as they are looking for me to find the obstacle to cure, to
direct them to medical tests, dietary regimens, efficacious
supplementation. Heck, that's what they are paying me for!   They WANT
direction; the NEED direction.  I myself didn't want a "best friend"
when I sought medical care; I wanted someone who knew what they were
doing, what I needed to do, and directed me to achieve those goals.
Patients need someone confident to know what is going on and tell them
how they can get better.  We don't want them to turn over all their
power to us, true, but we need them to trust us enough to do the tests
we suggest, and follow our educated and experienced advice.

The partnership is formed throughout the doctor/patient relationship in
many ways outside of semantics, and whether someone is Dr. Kim or Dr.
Morstein, or you are working with a "partner" or a "patient" shouldn't
matter one tiny bit.  The partnership is based on treating patients
with respect; basing a therapeutic regimen particularly on Docere, so
all aspects of it are fully explained to the patient's understanding,
giving them time to ask clarifying questions if necessary;  engaging in
compromise with the patient though not to the extent the therapy will
no longer be effective (for example, if a food allergy test comes back
exhibiting leaky gut and the patient is reactive to 40 foods, obviously
it makes no sense to remove to demand the patient remove all those
foods from their diet--can the patient remove the top three, perhaps
while we heal up the gut?); working effectively within the patient's
financial capabilities;  understanding their struggles to make change
and supporting them on their journey no matter how fast or slow their
commitment to heal is going;  and so forth.

We shouldn't get too caught up in whether we are Dr. First Name or Dr.
Last Name. In my experience, it doesn't matter, except to the doctor.
We should simply ensure we are good doctors, and treat patients with
respect, integrity and compassion, that we act decisively and strive to
have patients follow our knowledgeable directions, but we can
compromise and be supportive.  That will ensure the partnership
develops.    Semantics is always less important that the actual human
interaction.

Mona Morstein, ND
Mesa, AZ

> At any rate, I am more apt to call
> my tribe "clients" and leave the term "patients" and the whole
> experience associated with the title to the allopaths. What do y'all
> think?
>

I introduce myself to every new patient as "Greg," and in my email
correspondences (of which I have dozens each week) I sign off as
Greg. I used to use "Dr. Nigh," but I just never felt comfortable
with it. Many wear that title well. I don't.

I have found it interesting how people respond to that. I've had a
few who told me that they knew immediately that I was going to be
their doctor since I didn't use my title but just my name. There are
many who continue to refer to me as Dr. Nigh, though I never refer to
myself that way. Some go for Dr. Greg.

I say all this because I think it points out differences in how
people see our relationship in the office. Some are used to the more
traditional doctor/patient relationship, so use Dr. Nigh to maintain
that in their mind. Others realize that the health care they are
experiencing in our office is not in the model of any traditional
doctor/patient relationship, and so I think are happy to step outside
of that with me and speak without the formalities.

I'm *not* suggesting that those who use the Dr. title are simply
reinforcing a traditional/conventional model of health care. Dr. Zeff
will always be Dr. Zeff in my mind, and that obviously has nothing to
do with his being conventional.

I have several different kinds of relationships with the people who
come into my office. I typically see people weekly, and sometimes
that is for a year or more. By that point, someone is clearly a
friend, and I talk to them as such and they to me the same. For other
people, they're in less often, or for only a few weeks or a few
months, or they're just a different personality type and we haven't
talked about life and meaning and favorite movies and their
existential angst and why tom waits is the best songwriter ever.

I often give brief anecdotes about other cases with people, and I
will always make reference to "another patient of mine that I saw
recently..." I don't think of it as anything pejorative. Ultimately,
I want people to learn a new definition of what it means to be a
patient, I want them to have a different expectation from any doctors
they see after me, and I want them to use their experience with me
and my clinic as the standard to which others are compared.

That was about as roundabout as I could be in responding to your
question.

Regards,

Greg

From Webster...
Client: a person who engages the professional advice or services of
another.

Patient: one who calmly tolerates and endures delays, confusion, pain,
trouble, etc., without complaining.

I've often wondered which came first, the experience of being
a "patient" of allopathic medicine or the title which subconsciously
lead to providing the experience. At any rate, I am more apt to call
my tribe "clients" and leave the term "patients" and the whole
experience associated with the title to the allopaths. What do y'all
think?

Once upon a time, in ancient Egypt, a wealthy man was dying.  He
called his 3 sons together to discuss how his wealth would be
distributed among them after he had passed.

His wealth was measured in camels, of which he had 17.  He decided to
leave to his first born son half of his camel herd, to his second
born he left 1/3 and to his youngest he left 1/9.  Well this number
left the sons unsure of what to do!

A wise man, hearing the dilemma of the brothers, offered them his
camel so that they would have an even number.  So the eldest received
9 camels, the middle son 6, and the youngest 2.  THe wise man then
left with his camel as there was still one left over.

And THAT is how enzymes work!!

Thank you to Dr. Betty for sharing that great story at the
Naturopathic Gathering this year.  And it brings to mind, for me, a
branch of a previous conversation on this board.

I personally, do not believe that my role as a physician is to heal
or to become a healer.  I see that role as being taken by Nature and
my role is simply to inform my clients how to facilitate healing, to
be an enzyme for the Vis Medicatrix Naturae to use.  As a part of
Nature, I recognize my ability to heal myself and I recognize your
ability to do the same for yourself.

For me, this speaks to the concept of not giving my own energy to my
clients, but instead to cultivate myself as a "hollow bone" so that
energy moves through me rather than from me.  Otherwise, as I've been
warned by my Reiki teacher and many others, I will quickly exhaust my
own reserves and end up worse off than those who came to me for help.

How do you see your role as physician?  Do you heal?  Are you a
healer?

From Webster...
Client: a person who engages the professional advice or services of
another.

Patient: one who calmly tolerates and endures delays, confusion, pain,
trouble, etc., without complaining.

I've often wondered which came first, the experience of being
a "patient" of allopathic medicine or the title which subconsciously
lead to providing the experience.  At any rate, I am more apt to call
my tribe "clients" and leave the term "patients" and the whole
experience associated with the title to the allopaths.  What do y'all
think?

Hello, all,

I am asking that someone take over as moderator of this group.  I am
too busy dealing with my other group, NaturopathicChat, to be
responsible for this group.  If no one takes over, we may have to
close the list, which would be a terrible shame.  The workload is
MINIMAL.  You basically just have to approve or disapprove folks
trying to join the list.  That's it.  Generally, that means putting in
about five minutes a MONTH of work.  While being so minimal, it's too
much for me as I already put in 30-60 minutes  a day on NatChat.

THANKS!

Mona