 Posted Friday, May 09, 2008 8:46 PM
|
|
|
|
| According to an article by Mark Hollmer in the Boston Business Journal, the CS Church is lobbying for "spiritual care" to be an insurance-covered option under a new Massachusetts law mandating health insurance coverage. Here's a link to the May 9, 2008 article, "Christian Scientists lobby for spiritual-care coverage." www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/05/12/story6.html The article makes the following statement: "State Rep. Byron Rushing, the House assistant-majority whip and an active Episcopalian, said there is room for the measure, as long as people who pursue spiritual care don't subsequently seek free medical care in hospitals."
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:30 PM
|
|
|
|
| If the taxpaying public wants to provide health care for all, then the taxpaying CSist has a valid argument in demanding to be a part of the system. I'm actually 100% behind them in their effort, the lone caveat being that their "health care providers" (practitioners) undergo the same rigorous scrutiny as real world doctors. And I'm not talking about anecdotal testimonies of their "patients" being healed of non-professionally diagnosed illnesses either. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Zoarean,
...the lone caveat being that their "health care providers" (practitioners) undergo the same rigorous scrutiny as real world doctors...
What do you suppose that would look like and who would scrutinize whom? Non-CSists, like non-doctors, would not likely have the knowledge or understanding to adequately scrutinize CS practitioners. On the other hand, we've seen many cases of once highly respected CSists later accused of not understanding CS.
Recently, allegations have been made against an otherwise respected CS teacher/practitioner. I suppose that the Dept. of Branches and Practitioners (do they still call it that?) would be the likely current course of scrutiny. I was told that I was eligible to apply to take CS class again since my CS teacher sought medical care before passing. Until that time, he was also a highly respected teacher/practitioner. In fact, he served as head of Branches and Practitioners for a time. So, even with the highest levels of scrutiny applied by TMC, there are those of us who apparently slip through.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| "What do you suppose that would look like and who would scrutinize whom? Non-CSists, like non-doctors, would not likely have the knowledge or understanding to adequately scrutinize CS practitioners." Well, if CS practitioners desire to be a part of a system that is based on objective diagnosis & treatment of illness & injury, they should be required to involve an independent, outside authority to establish their ability to provide proper treatment. Internal scrutiny & self-regulation should not suffice, being that others should not be forced to pay for unverified, unsubstantiated medical care. Just like the process of verification that all other medical treatments must undergo before being established as truly beneficial to good health. My wife sees an osteopathic physician, & not all the treatments he prescribes have established track records in the greater medical establishment. They become apparent as questionable procedures when the insurance company denies coverage. CS "procedures" of treatment, as well the "physicians" themselves should undergo like scrutiny before government mandates coverage. The only way I see to do this is have CS "patients" establish the reality of their illness or injury with an independent source before the practitioner begins his/her treatment, then again afterward to determine the actual level of care being provided. Of course, you see the paradox here, for CS treatment is centered on denying the reality of degenerative health conditions. Thus, establishing their reality would be wholly counterproductive to the CS treatment. zoarean
|
|
|
|