Nearly everything written for Women’s Medicine Bowl, Inc. is reviewed by our legal counselor to be assured that we’re not “practicing medicine.” And few things raise my ire more than the notion (and laws) that only members of the AMA are legally permitted to “practice medicine.” The underlying principle of WomensMedicineBowl.com is that if you’re alive you have not only the right but the responsibility, of taking care of your health, i.e. of practicing medicine.

Subscribing to the notion that laws regarding “practicing medicine” should be limited to those licensed “to prescribe drugs and/or perform surgery”, I investigated how do the various legal entities—medical societies, state legislatures, the courts– define “practicing medicine.”

The results are dire and depressing. And changes in the state legislatures and, following that, in the courts’ rulings will take a rebellion by the public, much as it did in the early 1800s when the primary treatments of physicians were bloodletting, purgatives, emetics and blistering. (The creation of medical societies to license physicians in the late 1700s had much more to do with protecting the members’ social status and financial turf than protecting the public.)

The severe and deadly treatments of “regular” physicians led to the public’s move to botanical treatments, herbalism, and homeopathy which arrived in America 1825, quickly becoming the preferred medical treatment. Two best-selling books in the 1830s were Homeopathic guidebooks to use with a kit of remedies.

Many “regular” physicians incorporated homeopathy into their practice, and these renegades were ostracized from the medical societies. Indeed, the AMA was formed in 1848 to counter the influence of homeopathic care.

There is no universal definition of what is “practicing medicine”; each state has its own definition—drawn up by the state medical society (singular not plural). So who can practice which healing modalities varies greatly across the country. In 1983, a reflexologist in Illinois was convicted of “practicing medicine”. Midwives in many states are continually battling with the legislatures and courts that pregnancy and childbirth aren’t within the definition of treating “disease, injury, or deformity”. Although by all measures of outcomes, birthing by midwives is healthier than in hospitals, the ancient practice of midwifery is hounded to the edges of the U.S. healthcare system. The court cases involving many healing modalities are numerous.

What is needed—and it’s coming—is a revolution in thinking. Two hundred years ago it was the physicians’ use of harsh chemicals and severe treatments such as wearing a coat of leeches (bloodletting) that drove a revolt by the public. In addition to being more effective, herbalism and homeopathy were more affordable. Doesn’t this sound familiar? With over 100,000 deaths each year due to pharmaceuticals and over 250,000 deaths due to physicians errors (and the pharmaceuticals), costs of healthcare spiraling (largely due to lawsuits caused by the above), and one in six of the US population without any health insurance coverage—isn’t it time for a revolution? (This sad scenario is limited to the U.S., by the way; every other developed or developing nation has better managed the healthcare of its citizens.)

New paradigms can’t occur without revolution because the debate is framed in terms of the current paradigm. Concerning the “practice of medicine” the current paradigm is: (1) If you are afflicted, see a licensed physician; (2) because the source of all healing is the licensed physician, any non-AMA health practitioner might be a fraud or a quack and is, in any case, unlawfully “practicing medicine”.

The revolutionary (again) new paradigm reframes the scenario as such: (1) If afflicted, you may choose from among a menu of healing modalities; (2) healing isn’t exclusively the province of MDs; other healing methods can exist alongside allopathic medicine.

A comprehensive review of the history of the regular or orthodox medical profession in the US, state regulations of “practicing medicine”, and a route to regulatory reform was published in the Arizona State Law Journal by Michael H. Cohen. See the complete well-written article, including references to over 500 court rulings, at http://www.rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/legal/fixedstar.contents.html.