Diagnosis: A Key Process
By Marillyn Beyer

We humans have a tendency to project our own beliefs and orientation outward and to expect others to come from the same frame of reference, to think and act like ourselves. We might tend to think that concepts and terms used in allopathic medicine have the same meaning when applied to natural and wholistic therapies, when in reality it is more like comparing apples and oranges. They are very different fruits, with different flavors and benefits.

One cannot transfer approaches used by allopathic medicine to therapies with different orientations. Or to use another comparison, if health/illness or ease/disease is on a continuum (which it is not, it is a blend) and if the consumer is an elephant, allopathy will look at the tail (symptom) while the others look at the whole elephant. It may be the symptom that drives a consumer to an allopathic MD or to a natural health therapist.But no matter how concerned the consumer is with their symptom, they may soon find the focus has changed if they have gone to a natural health therapist.

No matter what the complaint, the consumers soon find themselves answering very different kinds of questions, e.g. "Do you have a close friend you confide in? Do you love to watch thunderstorms? Do you feel worse between 4-8 am-pm? Are your feet warm in bed?" The symptom has become secondary to the whole. The elephant is seen, not just the tail.

Allopathic diagnosis is often symptom related, i.e. hypertension is just high blood pressure and purpura is just internal bleeding. This focus is on the end state of a process, the symptom, not the cause of the symptom. This raises a question. When a natural health practitioner makes a diagnosis, is it a diagnosis of a disease? No, it is NOT. Does that change anything? Does allopathy have the sole right to use the term?

What is this word: "to diagnose?" One definition of the verb is: "to analyze the cause of nature of a problem, condition, or situation, e.g. engine trouble." The noun "diagnosis" is defined as "a statement or conclusion from such an analysis."

If a natural health practitioner's approach is different than allopathy's, what might a diagnosis by a practitioner in a natural/holistic paradigm be?

• A nurse who subscribes to health as expanding consciousness might identify the pattern of the field, be it a social or an energy field.
• Ayurveda might identify the imbalance in Vata/Pitta/Kapha energy vibrations.
• Touch for Health might identify blown energy meridians.
• Homeopathy might identify the constitutional type.

In all cases the symptom is seen as an expression of the problem, not the problem. The diagnosis is NOT a disease, but a process! The treatment goal is to create an environment or field in which healing can occur. This is a completely different paradigm.

If the diagnosis by natural health providers is something other than a disease, are these people practicing medicine? Is there only one form of medicine –allopathy? Are other theories of practice not to be allowed without licensure even when, supportive of the natural healing properties of the body/spirit, those modalities are very safe and natural? And especially when Minnesota law states: "The legislature declares that no regulation shall be imposed upon any occupation unless required for the safety and well being of the citizens" and if harm is claimed it must be "recognizable and not remote." (Ch. 214 ,Subd. 2)

The word medicine (despite the typically assumed meaning) is defined as "something that affects well-being." That could be purpose or meaning in one's life, fun, achievement, pets, beliefs, sound, color, all of which have been known to improve health. But the Medical Practice Act states that anyone who "offers or undertakes to diagnose...or treat in any manner...any defect of any person" is practicing medicine, and must be licensed or be charged with practicing medicine without a license.

Was this the intention of the medical practice board or the legislature when the act was passed? We surely hope not! We know that all decisions have far more consequences than we can ever anticipate. We hope that the bill was passed in all innocence. However, we hope that all parties will become fully aware of, and seek remedies for, all of the problems that have resulted.

The Minnesota Medical Practice Board's staff attorney has stated that many of their members accept the fact that once a medical diagnosis had been made, people are free to seek whatever treatment they choose. However, he emphasized that they should get a medical diagnosis first. The recent literature shows that this is probably true at the present. Most people tend to seek medical opinions first, and seek other options when they are not getting the results they want.

Then again we hear from people that suffer from illness for years who see physicians and no diagnosis is established. Or who are told that conventional medicine can offer no cure or effective treatment. Chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis are two such examples.

So the question remains: Does a consumer having a prior medical diagnosis in any way increase the security of a natural health provider given the current licensing laws? All these questions will need to be answered by consumers, practitioners, and the legislature.

Our vision is that a vast array of providers, both licensed and unlicensed will provide consumers with service in a respectful, supportive, cooperative environment. The Minnesota Natural Health Coalition is committed to that end and invites anyone interested to participate with us in the process of meeting that goal.

Marillyn Beyer, MS, RN, is the former president of the Minnesota Natural Health Coalition.