Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D., nutter?

[Paul]

I just saw "One Step Beyond" on Discovery, a program which:exposes unusual cases or technological advances that seem inconceivable, but always contain within themselves the explanations for those mysteries, under the premise that the viewer must accept the scientific explanation of what he or she sees, however bizarre it seems.Among the usual oooh look a very flexible man, making ice cream with liquid nitrogen and the admittedly interesting explosive sniffing cyborg rats, there was a segment on Dr Mona Lisa Schulz, a neuropsychiatrist, neuroscientist, and medical intuitive. It seems Ms Schulz, who is Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vermont School of Medicine, diagnoses patients over the 'phone by 'intuition' alone.

Googling didn't find much about this revolution in diagnostic technique, but a few quotes from the good doctor go a long way: admit that accepting and acting on the presence and working of intuition in your life can involve a leap of faith, the way we all have to take it on faith that Neil Armstrong and other astronauts truly walked on the moon. It requires a suspension of your natural disbelief. A substantial number of scientific studies have indicated that certain emotional and psychological patterns are associated with diseases in specific organs; other studies support the link between specific memories and emotions and certain organ-specific diseases, such as breast cancer, coronary heart disease and Parkinson's disease.
For those, like me, who have never come across medical intuition before now, it apparently is the direct perception of the emotional and psychological patterns that form the basis for a person’s state of health or disease. I also note, without much surprise, that most people practising medical intuition also offer such sound medical techniques as clairvoyant readings, vibrational healing, channelling, regression and healing prayer.

Curiously Dr Schulz’s website (http://www.drmonalisa.com/) doesn’t have any medical information, but it does have a list of books and other products available to buy.

It seems to me that using your M.D. and Ph.D. while practising clairvoyance is, at the very least, unprofessional.

[casebro]

I don't see any intuition here at all. Mona is a psychiatrist, all of whom diagnose through talking to the patient. Of course, she works at a slight handicap since postural hints also mean a lot- hair wringing, balled fists, twitches. Most states do require personal contact before prescibing though, I wonder about Vermont?

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by casebro
I don't see any intuition here at all. Mona is a psychiatrist, all of whom diagnose through talking to the patient. eh?During a medical intuitive consultation, knowing only someone's name and age, Mona Lisa discerns both a person's physical condition and the emotional state of his or her life, explaining how the two are linked That's a little more than diagnosing, say, ADD -- and on less information.

I can only hope she keeps her psychiatry and "intuition" seperate, but from the look of her marketing it's not promising.

[yersinia29]

I dont think she's associated with an academic institution. She doesnt give a university-based email address, there's no listing of her in any academic institution, and the only website she gives is not affiliated with any academic institute.

Unfortunately there are a few doctors like this quack who go thru all the right training and then decide to throw it away in favor of quick money.

Andrew Weil is another good example. He graduated from Harvard Med School but quickly turned to quackery afterwards.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by yersinia29
I dont think she's associated with an academic institution. She doesnt give a university-based email address, there's no listing of her in any academic institution, and the only website she gives is not affiliated with any academic institute.
Errrr....

From the OP:

Ms Schulz, who is Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vermont School of Medicine...

Annnnd...here she is. (http://www.uvm.edu/directory/?Page=query_results.php&name=schulz&phone=&department=Psychiatry&uid=)

Sorry, hon... :o

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that she is a major embarrassment to the rest of the UVM faculty.

And I'll bet you a whole bagful of Krispy Kremes that the reason the UVM isn't mentioned on her website is because the UVM's legal beagles injured themselves falling down laughing when she put up the web page and asked them if it was okay if she mentioned the U by name.

And I want everyone to notice the enormous disclaimer on her web page:
During a medical intuitive consultation, there is no physician/patient relationship, nor is any psychotherapy being performed.
She can't be sued or otherwise called to account for malpractice or "non-professional" practices.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Paul
Curiously Dr Schulz’s website (http://www.drmonalisa.com/) doesn’t have any medical information, but it does have a list of books and other products available to buy.



Hmmmm, I suppose to be fully informed, I should go out and buy one of her books....














































not.

[Kaydens]

How utterly depressing!

One wonders who will be taken in by a quack who says little more than "Hey, I have no knowledge of what is wrong with you, but I can give it a guess!" Unfortunately one would be too many and she's bound to get more than that.

She has the right words on the site though "balance", "network", "Mind-Body" and "Sixth-Sense" plus of course a book on rediscovering the feminine (I'm not entirely sure how that relates to health and illness but hey). All calculated to draw the gullible folks in no doubt. Or maybe she honestly believes this codswallop.

But to top it all off, she gives her cats very silly names: "with her four cats, Molly, Dolly, Oscar, and Dr. Sigmund Feliné."

Dr Sigmund Feliné indeed! Let's be honest, she doesn't call her cat that, it'll be "Doc" or "Sigmund" or "Siggy" or something like that.

Kaydens.

PS. I'm gonna get reamed by the cat fanciers now aren't I?

[The Don]

The French for feline is, if I recall, pronounced "feh-lean" the spelling given would be pronounced "feh-lean-eh".

[Fengirl]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hmmmm, I suppose to be fully informed, I should go out and buy one of her books....




not.


Well, I find myself strangely tempted by her book "The New Feminine Brain" .

She has planted a seed of anxiety in my mind. Now I'm worried that my current feminine brain isn't good enough. It's not "New". I've had it ages. It's tired. It's tatty. It's "So last season, dahling".

I need, nay, DESERVE a New Feminine Brain, and Dr Schultz. is selling.

I'm buying, goddammit....














Not.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Goshawk

And I want everyone to notice the enormous disclaimer on her web page:

She can't be sued or otherwise called to account for malpractice or "non-professional" practices.

Of course, just writing a disclaimer doesn't make it so. If anyone wants to write the Vermont Department of Health and draw this to their attention, the relevant definition of "unprofessional conduct" (26 V.S.A. S1324) includes the following


(a) (2) all advertising of medical business which is intended or has a tendency to deceive the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant persons and so be harmful or injurious to public morals or safety;

(14) willful misrepresentation in treatments;

(17) offering, undertaking or agreeing to cure or treat disease by a secret method, procedure, treatment or medicine;

(18) consistent improper utilization of services;

(19) consistent use of nonaccepted procedures which have a consistent detrimental effect upon patients;

(22) in the course of practice, gross failure to use and exercise on a particular occasion or the failure to use and exercise on repeated occasions, that degree of care, skill and proficiency which is commonly exercised by the ordinary skillful, careful and prudent physician engaged in similar practice under the same or similar conditions, whether or not actual injury to a patient has occurred;

(b) (2) failure to conform to the essential standards of acceptable and prevailing practice.


Of course, the fact that "Mona Lisa Shultz" does not appear in the list of VT licenced physicians might also be of interest to them.

On the other hand, she is licenced in Maine (014343), so there may be some sort of reciprocity agreement. She also lists a Maine address for her consulting. So the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine might also be interested.

Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine
137 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333 - 0137
(207) 287 - 3601
Complaints (888) 365-9964

[casebro]

Originally posted by Fengirl
Well, I find myself strangely tempted by her book "The New Feminine Brain" .

She has planted a seed of anxiety in my mind. Now I'm worried that my current feminine brain isn't good enough. It's not "New". I've had it ages. It's tired. It's tatty. It's "So last season, dahling".

I need, nay, DESERVE a New Feminine Brain, and Dr Schultz. is selling.

I'm buying, goddammit....

DON'T DO IT!

I changed my mind once, but the new one didn't work any better...

[Paul]

Originally posted by Fengirl
I need, nay, DESERVE a New Feminine Brain, and Dr Schultz. is selling. Don't forget, with our one time only, never to be repeated, extra special offer, you also get free Inner Strengths, Genius and Intuition with that shiny new brain. :j1:

[Ducky]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Of course, just writing a disclaimer doesn't make it so. If anyone wants to write the Vermont Department of Health and draw this to their attention, the relevant definition of "unprofessional conduct" (26 V.S.A. S1324) includes the following



Of course, the fact that "Mona Lisa Shultz" does not appear in the list of VT licenced physicians might also be of interest to them.

On the other hand, she is licenced in Maine (014343), so there may be some sort of reciprocity agreement. She also lists a Maine address for her consulting. So the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine might also be interested.

Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine
137 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333 - 0137
(207) 287 - 3601
Complaints (888) 365-9964

I am willing to draft a letter and send it to both Vermont and Maine.

Any one want to check the finished letter for me? I wouldn't want to make any factual or conclusional mistakes.

[Ducky]

Ok, anyone who wants to edit or add or delete parts, or correct me for factual mistakes please do so. this is the letter as I have it so far.

I apologise for borrowing statements from Paul and Drkitten, but you two have said specific things more succinctly than I could. I will cite you two if you would like at the footers of the letter. Your words are in italics. If you wish me to remove them, I will do so.

Also, anyone wanting to sign their name to whis along with me is welcome (in petition style, I guess) I'll mail it around if needed.

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is David (removed), and I am writing to bring to your attention some disturbing facts I was recently made aware of. I am not a doctor, but I am intelligent enough to notice quackery when I see it. I will include at the end of this email a relevant definition from your statute on "unprofessional conduct." (26 V.S.A. S1324) I will also include a link to the website of the person about whom I am writing so that you may review for yourself.

Recently on the Discovery Channel, an expose on Dr. Mona Lisa Schultz was included in the program "One Step Beyond." It seems Ms Schulz, who is Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vermont School of Medicine diagnoses patients over the phone by 'intuition' alone. Here is the link to UVM showing her position:

http://www.uvm.edu/directory/?Page=query_results.php&name=schulz&phone=&department=Psychiatry&uid=

To quote her website:

http://www.drmonalisa.com/

"In addition to her extensive background in clinical medicine and brain research, Dr. Schulz has been a practicing medical intuitive for 14 years. During a medical intuitive consultation, knowing only someone's name and age, Mona Lisa discerns both a person's physical condition and the emotional state of his or her life, explaining how the two are linked ."

It seems to me that using your M.D. and Ph.D. while practicing clairvoyance defines the word unprofessional. To further quote her website:

"Dr. Schulz teaches us how to become aware of how our symptoms of illness are part of our intuition network, letting us know when something in our lives is out of balance. During a medical intuitive consultation, there is no physician/patient relationship, nor is any psychotherapy being performed. Mona Lisa will educate you in how specific emotional situations in your life are associated with the increased risk of illness in a specific organ in your body . "

That statement on it's own says almost nothing, it is in conjunction with the next statement on her site that it becomes alarming. To go further on her website:

"A substantial number of scientific studies have indicated that certain emotional and psychological patterns are associated with diseases in specific organs; other studies support the link between specific memories and emotions and certain organ-specific diseases, such as breast cancer, coronary heart disease and Parkinson's disease."

That is a very disturbing claim. It is implying that her phone consultation can make accurate diagnosis, and that this is backed up by proper study. Worrying still is that I can find no peer reviewed journal on the internet or through PubMed, a service of the National Library of Medicine, that even comes close to making that claim. In the interest of peer review and open study, I would invite Ms Schultz to publish those studies, as I am sure you would also, so that the methodology of these studies can be verified, and repeated to show the same results.

For those, like me, who have never come across medical intuition before now, it apparently is the direct perception of the emotional and psychological patterns that form the basis for a person's state of health or disease. I also note, without much surprise, that most people practicing medical intuition also offer such sound medical techniques as clairvoyant readings, vibrational healing, channelling, regression and healing prayer.

To use her medical background while performing this nonsense is tantamount to saying that because she is a doctor, she can perform clairvoyance, psychic diagnosis, and recommend treatment. Again, I repeat myself:

It seems to me that using your M.D. and Ph.D. while practicing clairvoyance is at best unprofessional, and at worst complete fraud.

Of course, the fact that "Mona Lisa Shultz" does not appear in the list of VT licenced physicians might also be of interest to you.

On the other hand, she is licenced in Maine (014343), so there may be some sort of reciprocity agreement. She also lists a Maine address for her consulting, so the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine might also be interested. I will leave that distinction to you, and for your convenience I will also include the contact information for the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine.

I urge you to take action immediately on this matter. While I personally have not been affected by, or had any contact with Ms Schultz, I would imagine a short inquiry into her practices and interviews with her "patients" would give ample case for fraud.

Thank you for your time,

David (removed)

_____


Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine
137 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333 - 0137
(207) 287 - 3601
Complaints (888) 365-9964

The relevant definition of "unprofessional conduct" (26 V.S.A. S1324) includes the following:

(a) (2) all advertising of medical business which is intended or has a tendency to deceive the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant persons and so be harmful or injurious to public morals or safety;

(14) willful misrepresentation in treatments;

(17) offering, undertaking or agreeing to cure or treat disease by a secret method, procedure, treatment or medicine;

(18) consistent improper utilization of services;

(19) consistent use of nonaccepted procedures which have a consistent detrimental effect upon patients;

(22) in the course of practice, gross failure to use and exercise on a particular occasion or the failure to use and exercise on repeated occasions, that degree of care, skill and proficiency which is commonly exercised by the ordinary skillful, careful and prudent physician engaged in similar practice under the same or similar conditions, whether or not actual injury to a patient has occurred;

(b) (2) failure to conform to the essential standards of acceptable and prevailing practice.

Her website:

http://www.drmonalisa.com/



Any help in refining and editing this letter to the vermont board (and probably to be copied to the maine board of health also) would be greatly appreciated.

[Goshawk]

Look, that's all very laudable, guys, that you wanna Fight Ignorance, but you're missing the point:
all advertising of medical business
She's not advertising as a medical practitioner; that's the point I was making, about her disclaimer. She's like those nutriceuticals that don't promise to do anything at all other than vaguely "increase body tone" or something, and so the FDA can't touch them for promising something they can't deliver. If she's not promising to do anything "medical" to you, then she can't be prosecuted for improperly practicing "medicine". That's the same loophole that any number of quacks and woos use, to get around the Feds. They don't promise anything, they don't claim to "practice medicine", so they're covered.

Betcha a nickel she's had lawyers look her site over.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Look, that's all very laudable, guys, that you wanna Fight Ignorance, but you're missing the point:

She's not advertising as a medical practitioner; that's the point I was making, about her disclaimer. She's like those nutriceuticals that don't promise to do anything at all other than vaguely "increase body tone" or something, and so the FDA can't touch them for promising something they can't deliver. If she's not promising to do anything "medical" to you, then she can't be prosecuted for improperly practicing "medicine". That's the same loophole that any number of quacks and woos use, to get around the Feds. They don't promise anything, they don't claim to "practice medicine", so they're covered.

Betcha a nickel she's had lawyers look her site over.

Aww man! I got all riled up for nothing. :D

Should send a copy of that letter to quackwatch though. They can at least list her, or can they?

[Fengirl]

Goshawk is probably right that her lawyers would have checked her site to ensure that her disclaimers are potentially capable of protecting her against a medical negligence or unprofessional conduct claim. That doesn't necessarily mean she's legally water-tight. Disclaimers aren't "get out of jail free" cards...they operate to deter legal action, but can always be challenged. The opposing argument is there to be made, by anyone who is sufficiently determined. By leading off her advertisement with a full list of her medical qualifications, she is (arguably) wilfully misleading the public into believing that she IS offering a genuine medical service.

Anyway, I see no harm in sending the letter. If nothing else, it at least raises the board's awareness of her activities, and might lead them to scrutinise her a little more closely.

I note that her contact details and telephone number are on the web-site.

Just for kicks, it might be interesting for someone to phone and book a "consultation" (with a handy recording device ready, of course)! Any volunteers? (I'm in England and too cheap to pay for the overseas call!) :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Fengirl
Goshawk is probably right that her lawyers would have checked her site to ensure that her disclaimers are potentially capable of protecting her against a medical negligence or unprofessional conduct claim. That doesn't necessarily mean she's legally water-tight. Disclaimers aren't "get out of jail free" cards...they operate to deter legal action, but can always be challenged. The opposing argument is there to be made, by anyone who is sufficiently determined. By leading off her advertisement with a full list of her medical qualifications, she is (arguably) wilfully misleading the public into believing that she IS offering a genuine medical service.

Anyway, I see no harm in sending the letter. If nothing else, it at least raises the board's awareness of her activities, and might lead them to scrutinise her a little more closely.

I note that her contact details and telephone number are on the web-site.

Just for kicks, it might be interesting for someone to phone and book a "consultation" (with a handy recording device ready, of course)! Any volunteers? (I'm in England and too cheap to pay for the overseas call!) :)

I am thinking I may call her and record the whole thing. I'd use like dialpad or some such and just record the streaming bit on my pc.

We'll see...

Any suggestions on editing the letter? I'd still send it anyway

[Goshawk]

I am thinking I may call her and record the whole thingI'd consult a lawyer before I tried making, or using, any recordings of conversations with her. There might be privacy issues, and SHE might end up suing YOU.

Successfully.

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html
Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances. Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington...[more]
By leading off her advertisement with a full list of her medical qualifications, she is (arguably) wilfully misleading the public into believing that she IS offering a genuine medical service.Well, er, no, I don't believe that anyone who is more or less functional could read her website and think that she is "offering a genuine medical service". Here's what she is offering to do:
...discerns both a person's physical condition and the emotional state of his or her life, explaining how the two are linked.

Dr. Schulz teaches us how to become aware of how our symptoms of illness are part of our intuition network, letting us know when something in our lives is out of balance. During a medical intuitive consultation, there is no physician/patient relationship, nor is any psychotherapy being performed. Mona Lisa will educate you in how specific emotional situations in your life are associated with the increased risk of illness in a specific organ in your body. There's nothing specifically "medical" about any of this. This is the identical sort of thing that Reiki and other touchy-feely New Age practitioners offer. "Discerning how your physical and emotional conditions are linked" has nothing to do with the practice of medicine, as long as she is not actually diagnosing illness. Which it quite definitely does not say she is doing. She's just offering "consultations" with no concrete promises of any "medical" benefits.

There are any number of homeopathic practitioners that have both MDs and PhDs, and the Feds can't touch them. I don't think that there's a regulatory body in the country that could make anything stick here. You have to look at it like a lawyer, not as an outraged consumer.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Goshawk
I'd consult a lawyer before I tried making, or using, any recordings of conversations with her. There might be privacy issues, and SHE might end up suing YOU.

Successfully.

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html

Well, er, no, I don't believe that anyone who is more or less functional could read her website and think that she is "offering a genuine medical service". Here's what she is offering to do:
There's nothing specifically "medical" about any of this. This is the identical sort of thing that Reiki and other touchy-feely New Age practitioners offer. "Discerning how your physical and emotional conditions are linked" has nothing to do with the practice of medicine, as long as she is not actually diagnosing illness. Which it quite definitely does not say she is doing. She's just offering "consultations" with no concrete promises of any "medical" benefits.

There are any number of homeopathic practitioners that have both MDs and PhDs, and the Feds can't touch them. I don't think that there's a regulatory body in the country that could make anything stick here. You have to look at it like a lawyer, not as an outraged consumer.


*Sigh*

OK, I'll revert to mailing her dog poop.:D

It's frustrating when they're smart enough to "just be legal enough."

grr.

[casebro]

Send your letters. Leave the enforcement or not to the medical boards and the dean of the university. They will atleast be informed of the public's dissatisfaction with the woo direction that science seems to be heading.

[Fengirl]

I agree - I'd probably still send the letter (rather than the dog poop!)

I have no experience of medical boards or professional regulatory bodies in the USA...maybe they really won't care, as long as she's staying the right side of the law, (i.e. not advertising a "medical business"). I do, however, have experience as a member of the British Psychological Society - and they are usually very quick to investigate anybody misusing their qualifications like this.

[Goshawk]

But, see, she's not misusing her qualifications, at least not by American legal standards. Merely posting the fact that she owns an M.D. and a PhD. does not legally constitute "misusing" her qualifications, because she's not claiming to be able to cure or heal anything. She's found a nifty loophole to slide through.

Look, if she was saying on her website, "Hi! I'm a real doctor, see my degrees? And I can fix all your mental and physical ailments by intuition!", then she'd be liable to prosecution by the Feds, because she would be claiming to be able to actually DO something physical--medical--for you.

But although she is saying on her website, "Hi! I'm a real doctor, see my degrees?", she is however not going on to say, "...I can fix all your mental and physical ailments by intuition!"

See what I'm saying, see the difference there? She's not claiming to be able to actually heal anybody of any ailments, mental or physical, via intuition. All she's officially, technically claiming to be able to do is to "[discern] both a person's physical condition and the emotional state of his or her life, [and] [explain] how the two are linked....[and] [teach] us how to become aware of how our symptoms of illness are part of our intuition network, [and] [let] us know when something in our lives is out of balance."

None of that constitutes "the practice of medicine" in the legal sense of the word. It's exactly the sort of thing that any number of New Age touch-feely SoCal self-help groups are currently retailing, and since they don't constitute "the practice of medicine", the Feds leave them alone. If they started claiming to be able to cure things, upfront, then they'd be liable to prosecution for practicing medicine without a license. So they don't claim to be able to do that. They just stick with vague promises to "get you in touch with your inner self" or whatever, which has nothing to do, legally, with the practice of medicine.

And just to underscore that, immediately following her extremely vague claims of what she can do for you with her intuition, there's that humongous disclaimer that I pointed out at first:
During a medical intuitive consultation, there is no physician/patient relationship, nor is any psychotherapy being performed.The whole "physician/patient relationship" thing is the core of American legal opinion when it comes to medical practice and malpractice, and by upfront declaring that she is deliberately NOT setting up a physician/patient relationship, she is giving herself an "out".

I agree it's frustrating when they learn how to make the laws work for them, but there's not a lot you can do.


ETA: AMA link (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4607.html) on the ethics of physician-patient relationships. This is what Dr. Shulz is deliberately avoiding, this whole thing.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Goshawk
All she's officially, technically claiming to be able to do is to "[discern] both a person's physical condition and the emotional state of his or her life, [and] [explain] how the two are linked....[and] [teach] us how to become aware of how our symptoms of illness are part of our intuition network, [and] [let] us know when something in our lives is out of balance."
Goshawk, I think you are right, but permit me some devil advocacy. Is not the discernment of a "person's physical condition" the act of medical diagnosis, which would not be permitted?

fowlsound, send your letters. At the very least she'll get some well deserved harrassment.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by SezMe
Goshawk, I think you are right, but permit me some devil advocacy. Is not the discernment of a "person's physical condition" the act of medical diagnosis, which would not be permitted?

fowlsound, send your letters. At the very least she'll get some well deserved harrassment.

OK, my problem is this:

whether she says she will diagnose or not is a sticky thing.

If she does, I want to call her on it outright.

If she doesn't how do I expose a fraud?

I am a cancer survivor, and I am very very in tune with wackos. I do NOT want to see someone follow a treatment that isn't effective. This means alot to me.

So, yes she can, yes she can't. Let's talk about this openly, let's decide whether I should complain or not.

I am not a "genius" but I am the son of a president of a college and the other side was an attorney. I see fraud, am I wrong?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I see fraud, am I wrong?
As demonstrated by this thread, it is debatable. Thus my assertion to pursue the issue. If it is not fraud, you (and all of us) will learn why. If it is, you will have done an immense service to the good medical science.

IOW, what is there to lose by sending your letters and aggresively following up?

[Fengirl]

Goshawk, I do see what you are saying, because you have made good points, and made them well. I don't think anything you have said is wrong.

I am simply suggesting that there is a difference between illegal conduct and unprofessional conduct, and any halfway decent professional regulatory body would be interested in the latter, even if it does NOT constitute the former. Conduct doesn't have to break any laws to still be capable of bringing a profession into disrepute.

As an example of what I mean, a doctor or psychologist or therapist who regularly has consensual sex with patients under their care may not be breaking any law. They are, however, breaching a code of conduct/professional ethics, and can be censured or disciplined by a conduct committee. Internal professional regulation often holds practitioners to higher standards than statutory law requires.

Dr Shultz's use of her medical credentials to give a veneer of credibility and respectability to what essentially sounds like clairvoyance may well slip through a LEGAL loophole, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is something of which the medical profession itself approves, or would not want to investigate, if alerted.

It IS all arguable. Most things are... If not, we certainly wouldn't need so many damned lawyers :) But I still say: send the letter and let THEM decide.

[Beancounter]

To avoid potential problems, why not just tone down the letter (e.g. the last paragraph is tantamount to accusing her of fraud). Point out your concerns and let the authorities make their own minds up. You really don't want the hassle of lawyers' letters heading your way.

At least you might put a bit of heat on her which can only be a good thing.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Beancounter
To avoid potential problems, why not just tone down the letter (e.g. the last paragraph is tantamount to accusing her of fraud). Point out your concerns and let the authorities make their own minds up. You really don't want the hassle of lawyers' letters heading your way.

At least you might put a bit of heat on her which can only be a good thing.

"To ensure proper medical diagnostic standards are updeld."

That would work better in the last paragraph I think

[Deetee]

Very good work, Fowlsound.
Have a beer on me.

[Goshawk]

Well, yeah, no question that in the ordinary, Average-Joe sense of the word, it's "unprofessional" as all get-out. She knows perfectly well that those initials after her name will convey a sense of legitimacy to her wack enterprise, saving her from being just another nutter with a website. It makes her look like a "real doctor" to the sort of people who cruise the Internet looking for yet another alternative therapy, having worked their way through everything else, I'm aware of that.

However, it's not "unprofessional" in the legal sense of the word--there's no grounds for any regulatory body to yank her license to practice medicine, because technically, legally, she's not "practicing medicine".

Found this, in the midst of an article: (http://www.aana.com/legal/legbrfs/1999/04lb99.asp)
the traditional definition of the practice of medicine -- diagnosis and prescription
For her to be "practicing medicine", then, she has to, first, diagnose, and second, prescribe.

But she deliberately avoids saying she's intending to "diagnose" anything. All she's going to do, she says, is "discern" how your body is "out of balance". That's not the same thing as making a diagnosis. I feel your pain, Fowlsound, really I do, but unfortunately for your desire to unmask a fraud, she's not promising to "diagnose" anything.

Legally, in order for her to be prosecuted for fraud, she would have to be promising something that she could not, or would not, deliver. But see, that's the genius of this thing: she's not promising to deliver anything at all, other than a consultation in which she will "intuit" how your body is out of balance. And she will certainly deliver on that. The client (not "patient", remember?) will sit there and fork over the money to have their imbalances intuited, and Mona Lisa will sit there and will intuit their imbalances. Contract engaged in, contract fulfilled, end of story. No fraud involved.

And for the second half of the "practice of medicine" equation, she's not going to prescribe anything afterwards. She's not going to suggest that you do anything to fix it. All she's promising to do is "educate" you about how your body is out of balance. Gurus do this all the time, and nobody shouts "Fraud!" People consulting a guru know, going in, what they can expect, so they're never unpleasantly surprised afterwards when the guru fails to deliver. So nobody ever sues a guru for fraud.

She's not even going to go as far as the tissue salts people, IOW. At least even they will tell you specifically, "Your bile is not of normal consistency; you need Natrum."

And you notice how they never get the Feds on their tail.

Go ahead and send the letter if it makes you feel better, but I am quite certain that those in her profession who know about her are already rolling their eyes.

Also, she's got at least four books in print, and those don't happen overnight, so she's been doing this for a while. Probably everybody in the psych profession in New England knows about her already.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Beancounter
To avoid potential problems, why not just tone down the letter (e.g. the last paragraph is tantamount to accusing her of fraud). Point out your concerns and let the authorities make their own minds up. You really don't want the hassle of lawyers' letters heading your way.

At least you might put a bit of heat on her which can only be a good thing.

Would it be better then to ask her for her research data? After 14 years, she should have something more than anectdotal evidence to support her claims (that is IF she was actually doing something other than fortune telling)

Hmm I may rewrite the whole thing and send a copy to her, quackwatch.org and the medical boards...

[bonnie]

If so, what was the response? MLS now has three websites.