Is it a Health Condition?

By Michael Dorausch, D.C.

“No content is a substitute for professional medical advice. You should consult a physician before engaging in any activity or treatment discussed in these blah blah blah blah blah…”

Does that leave a bad taste in your mouth? I don’t know about you but it really gets under my skin. (is that a medical skin condition?) I noticed the above info recently on a Los Angeles Times webpage. No doubt it was written by someone who does not have a clue about health care. (excuse me while I vent)

I was recently reading a health related article on a web site and noticed this disclaimer at the bottom. It stated, “remember that editorial content is never a substitute for a visit to a health-care professional.”

I thought that was pretty good. So good that I am thinking about using similar terminology on Planet Chiropractic. I often respond to emails telling others they need to discuss the issue in question with their chiropractor (most are already patients, practice members, etc.) and more importantly, they need to take responsibility for their health and not rely solely on one professionals advice.

So, is there a difference between the two disclaimers? I am reminded of an event when Dr. Sid Williams was speaking and he came upon the topic of some disorder, I think it was a heart condition. He was reading from a study regarding the function of the heart and his statement was somewhat like this…

“Improper functioning of the heart can lead to a number of serious medical conditions.” He paused and stated, “I thought that it was a health condition.” I was a student at the time but I believe the point he was trying to make was that people just assume that such a condition would be considered a medical condition and not a health condition. Some may argue that there is no difference, that a medical condition is a health condition and vice versa. Some may also say that it is just a term that is applied and does not necessarily mean it is a “medical” condition. I personally would have to disagree with that. To me that’s like just paying the fine for “practicing medicine without a license” and continuing on with no explanation.

The person that made this idea most clear to me was Reggie Gold. Reggie was speaking to a group (as he often does) and he offered an example. A very proud chiropractor was boasting about a recent case. An individual had come to his office after they had previously been to several medical doctors and the MD’s could not figure out what was wrong with this individual. The DC did an exam and x-rays were performed. The chiropractor believed that the individual had cancer and referred them out to… a medical doctor. No chiropractic care was initiated. Is that in the best interest of the patient/practice member?

Reggie then stated something like, “I’m not an oncologist, I’m not a medical doctor. As a chiropractor, how would I know what would be appropriate?” Appropriate other then correcting subluxations I may add. Who’s to say that when confronted with an individual that has some condition, that the medical approach would be best?

Joe Accurso talks about this. We get out of school and want to be called doctor and it can be really tough to let go of all that, getting others to realize that THEY are the doctor. Maybe what a person needs when they have some sort of condition is a spiritual adviser, a nutritionist, an acupuncturist, or any number of providers other than a medical doctor or even a chiropractor.

Let’s get back to the topic of health websites. One of the biggest problems I have with so-called trusted code systems for health Web sites is that they require this kind of medico-legal language to be displayed on each web site or web page. Could you imagine visiting Planet Chiropractic or ANY chiropractic (or non-medical) website for that matter and reading… “No content on this site is a substitute for professional medical advice.”

How can you apply a medical coding system to a nonmedical web site? Fortunately, (my opinion) there is currently no common legal framework for the provision of healthcare information on the Internet. Some would argue that is a bad thing but is it worse then everyone conforming to one standard that is medically based?

I like the Sigafoose approach, “if you don’t believe what I tell you, that’s your problem.”

I would love to get your feedback on this. What sort of terminology does one use that is still appropriate, congruent, and noncontradictory?

planetc1.com-news @ 11:09 am | Article ID: 996689344