To Wit, Hypocrites with Double Standards?

This will be it (I hope) regarding dry needling for a while.  Just these last few points which are pertinent to other discussions.

Will Morris concluded his AT article with this  — “To wit: let us pursue a collaborative process of developing inter-professional competencies. Remove biomedicine and herbal medicine courses from the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM) standards. Then, take what is left over in acupuncture programs as the starting place for a dialogue for portable competencies….To avoid conflicts of interest, no individual who stands to profit from seminars should determine competencies and educational standards, nor should they testify in legislature on behalf of the common good.”

My comments  –

1)    Collaborative processes don’t start with a one-sided statement of the starting point.

2)      Why stop with removing only biomedicine and herbal medicine from the ACAOM standards?  An incomplete list of things I was taught in my ACAOM accredited program that seem unnecessary for the education of a licensed PT who wants to use an acupuncture needle to stimulate a trigger point: tai chi, qi gong, pulse diagnosis, tongue diagnosis, point location, point indications, the officials, the five elements, business development, TCM principles, and the Classics. I have yet to find a colleague who could come up with more than 40 hours of content – Day 1: contraindications, risk factors, areas in the vicinity of forbidden points, reasons to refer.  Day 2: Clean needle technique, Day 3-5: Needle technique, practice and a review of reasons to refer. Seems like anything more and we are encouraging these practitioners to move beyond trigger point release.

4)      As a member of a regulatory board, I believe it is important to hear from educators when exploring issues of scope, or really, any issue. On the other hand, when NCCAOM sent two representatives to a Virginia board meeting to explain why requiring licensees to maintain current NCCAOM Diplomate status was critical to protect the public I did feel it was self-serving. So, to those making this argument, will you agree to it across the board? If there is any exploration about licensure requirements for LAcs will the schools, NCCAOM, ACAOM, and any other organization that “stands to profit” keep silent on behalf of the common good?  Some may say this violates the First Amendment, but as long as everyone agrees to abide by this limitation, I’m willing to give it a try.


Copyright —

© Elaine Wolf Komarow and The Acupuncture Observer, 2013-2033. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express written permission from Elaine Wolf Komarow is prohibited. Excerpts and links are encouraged, provided that full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.

2 thoughts on “To Wit, Hypocrites with Double Standards?

    • Pete,

      I totally agree this is tragic. Fully trained LAcs have been responsible for similar injuries and even a short course in acupuncture should stress the risks inherent in needling deeply into this area.

      Also, I do think more training is generally better, and the public should absolutely understand the different training of different classes of providers.

Comments are closed.