ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE IN THE COMMUNITY
Why aren't doctors as eager to learn about our break-through discoveries as
we are? Why do they turn a deaf ear in many instances? It may surprise you
to know that they have no choice. They are bound by what is called "the
accepted standard of care in the community." If they do not adhere to that
standard of care, they are vulnerable to losing everything which they have
worked for their entire lives. And they are unwilling to take that chance. I
was talking with the wife of a doctor who teaches at the University of
Washington School of Medicine, who told me that her husband acknowledges the
fact that the standard of care in the community is not always the best
choice of treatment. But doctors are compelled to follow it.
As a court reporter of 30 years, I worked on many medical malpractice cases.
The first question asked during pre-trial discovery or at the time of trial
was, "Doctor, did you follow the accepted standard of care in the community
when treating Mary Jones?" If the answer is no, ipso facto, they are guilty
of malpractice, they are liable to be hit with serious monetary sanctions,
and their right to continue practicing medicine is seriously jeopardized.
What is the "standard of care," and who defines it? It is the
recommendations found in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) and peer
reviewed articles in cited journals, materials which they can find by going
to Medline. The PDR is a book which is on the desk of every physician and
which is updated annually. In it a doctor will find a section for the
condition which he has diagnosed and the recommended drugs of choice, with
their potential benefits and possible side effects. Most of the time the
possible adverse side effects take several times more space than the
potential benefits.
The "standard of care" is the course of treatment which you can predict will
be administered if you go from one doctor to another in your community
because they are all using the same sets of recommendations.
Where does the material come from in the PDR and cited journals? The PDR is
published by the pharmaceutical industry. And most material in the cited
journals is developed from studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry, as
well. In other words, drug companies determine the vast weight of opinion
held in the health care industry.
What can we do about this? This is the exciting part and should give you
tremendous pride and confidence in the forward-thinking genius of
Mannatech's scientific team, headed by Dr. Bill McAnalley. If you wonder why
they have focused on the disease conditions which they selected, they are
conditions for which there is as yet no "standard of care." We have numerous
articles coming out in "cited" journals regarding these conditions. And it
is expected that our products will eventually be declared the "standard of
care" in those areas. When that occurs your doctor will be free to use our
products in his treatment decisions. In fact, he will be derelict if he does
not. And once that initial inroad into natural, non-toxic products has been
made, many others will follow shortly thereafter.
Folks, this is how paradigms are changed. Some courageous pioneers, who are
scoffed at by their peers, forge forward against tremendous pressure. And
once the light of day is shined upon new knowledge, darkness gradually
recedes into the background. And we eventually get to the point that the new
paradigm is accepted by the whole, and creative thought once again is on the
same page, opening new vistas which in the old paradigm were totally
unthinkable. - by Donna Davis
THE NEW PARADIGM IN HEALTH -
The following is a comparison of the old beliefs based on the current
paradigm and new beliefs based on the emerging new paradigm:
OLD - It is necessary to work against nature in order to control and
manipulate the body towards the appearance of wellness. The current belief
is that the body has a very limited capacity to heal itself.
NEW - "The body heals itself and nutrition provides the resources to
accomplish that task." Dr. Roger Williams - Nutrition Against Disease, 1971.
The concept of "treating" a disease is replaced by a process of restoring
balance to the body through natural means.
OLD - The body is a machine that can be broken down into parts and fixed,
just as if it were a car. The body is merely physical, and only physical
solutions will work.
NEW - The body is a living, multidimensional organism, not a machine. The
dynamics of the physical body are based on its blueprint (energy pattern)
and not solely on its chemical and physiological reactions. Emotions and
mental attitudes have a great deal to do with the experience of health.
Sometimes a disease process can be part of a spiritual, transformative
process, in which case a physical treatment method may be only partially
successful.
OLD - Eliminating symptoms is the same as healing, and it is justifiable to
use toxic substances to do so.
NEW - Healing is a long process. To rebuild a body to the cellular level
takes a while, and this process is different from person to person. This
process may not always be comfortable since it requires elimination of toxic
substances through the organs of detoxification. The inner wisdom of the
body has its own priorities, and the process is not always predictable.
OLD - The goal of medical science is to find a "cure" for each
separately-labeled disease by finding an exact cause for that disease; i.e.,
one cause/one disease.
NEW - What are perceived as distinct diseases are different manifestations
of common underlying imbalances - many of which can be traced to oxidative
stress ("rusting") at the cellular level and immune dysfunction. Donald O.
Rudin, MD*, has named this phenomenon The Modernization Disease Syndrome. He
includes in this syndrome heart disease, cancer, AIDS, diabetes, arthritis,
colitis, mental disorders, autoimmune conditions, etc. He sees that
underlying this syndrome are imbalances in the regulatory mechanisms in the
body resulting from "changes in lifestyle factors involving exercise,
stress, smoking, drugs, pollutants, and especially a multiplicity of
interacting dietary modifications which have not heretofore been evaluated
for their collective effect." He speaks of how both cancer and heart disease
researchers see a dietary and lifestyle component to each of these diseases
"without mentioning each other's findings, as though cancer and heart
disease were unrelated illnesses instead of just different genetic
manifestations of the same nutrition and lifestyle problem" - i.e., The
Modernization Disease Syndrome.
OLD - Medical knowledge unfolds in a hierarchical fashion from research
scientist to doctor to patient. The doctor is the unquestioned authority
over the patient and is in control of the process.
NEW - Determining appropriate nutritional support requires active
participation between individual and health practitioner. Biochemical
individuality is the key. It is essential that each individual listen to the
"Healer" within. Therefore, it is impossible for a "doctor" to have the
ultimate control in the healing process. In the emerging paradigm, the true
definition of "doctor" as teacher is restored.
NEW - Health discoveries can occur outside of scientific channels. What
works is of primary importance, as long as it creates no harm. There is no
need to ban the practice of using what works until "hierarchical" scientific
research has validated it. - by Marcia Smith, N.D., Ph.D
* Dr. Rudin is a graduate of Harvard Medical School, long-time Director of
the Department of Molecular Biology at the Pennsylvania Psychiatric
Institute, and the author of The Omega 3 Phenomenon.
Return to Autism index