Homeopath pleads guilty to malpractice

[paiute]

from http://tinyurl.com/ys49jy
The Reno Gazette Journal

Doctor says he's guilty of malpractice
JACLYN O'MALLEY
JOMALLEY@RGJ.COM
September 24, 2007

A Carson City "anti-aging" doctor has pleaded guilty to malpractice for failing to diagnose an elderly patient with the cancer that ultimately killed him.

It is Dr. Frank Anthony Shallenberger's second discipline by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners in 12 years.

Shallenberger's plea last week regarding patient David Horton's care came on the heels of the board's dismissal of another family's complaint related to Shallenberger's treatment of their sister, Ellen Gallagher, of Sacramento, who died on Labor Day 2006.

Edited by Miss A:

Snipped per rule 4

Do not post copyrighted material at length or in entirety per the membership agreement

Posted By:Miss Anthrope

[Rodney]

Why isn't this thread titled "Allopath/Homeopath Who Used Alternative Medicine Pleads Guilty to Malpractice"?

[fls]

It will be interesting to see how the homeopathic medical board handles the Gallagher case.

Linda

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Why isn't this thread titled "Allopath/Homeopath Who Used Alternative Medicine Pleads Guilty to Malpractice"?

Maybe because "allopath" isn't a word except in the lexicons of SCAMmers who use it to insult actual doctors?

Rolfe.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Maybe because "allopath" isn't a word except in the lexicons of SCAMmers who use it to insult actual doctors?

Rolfe.

Why, then does that word appear in my 1986 Webster's New World Dictionary? The definition is "a person who practices or advocates allopathy." "Allopathy", in turn, is defined as "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease: loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today, but in strict usage opposed to homeopathy."

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by fls

It will be interesting to see how the homeopathic medical board handles the Gallagher case.

Linda

Is there such a thing or are you merely trying to scare me?

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Why, then does that word appear in my 1986 Webster's New World Dictionary? The definition is "a person who practices or advocates allopathy." "Allopathy", in turn, is defined as "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease: loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today, but in strict usage opposed to homeopathy."

Does that really sound like the definition of a modern medical doctor to you?

The word was invented by the same guy who invented homeopathy. He invented it so he had a shorthand description of his critics when he wanted to have a good rant. Just like we skeptics here use the word "woo".

[Deetee]

What seems unbelievable is that despite the quack "doctor" having failed to investigate his symptoms, necessitating a diagnosis by proper doctors at the point when he had advanced cancer, this man went back to the quack for more of the same woo. You'd think: Once bitten... but it appears not.

Quote:

Horton had been Shallenberger's patient for more than a decade, and seven months after emergency room doctors diagnosed Horton with stage-four colon cancer and said he had six months to live, Horton, 76, returned to Shallenberger for homeopathic cancer treatments. Those treatments included injections of insulin and laetrile, which, according to the National Cancer Institute, has shown little anti-cancer effect in laboratory, animal or human studies. Horton died in October 2003.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Why, then does that word appear in my 1986 Webster's New World Dictionary? The definition is "a person who practices or advocates allopathy." "Allopathy", in turn, is defined as "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease: loosely applied to the general practice of medicine today, but in strict usage opposed to homeopathy."

Exactly. Just as Hans said.

That definition seems good to me, it just lacks the information "by homoeopaths and other cranks" after the word "applied". I rest my case.

I never studied "allopathy", nobody has ever called me an "allopath", and I would never refer to myself by that term. This is true for everyone qualified in actual medicine.

Do you seriously think real medicine involves "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease"? Don't be silly. If that term applies to anything at all, it applies to the mediaeval theories of the four humours and purging and bloodletting and so on, or to perhaps Hindu Ayurvedic "medicine". Not to modern, evidence-based pharmacotherapeutic medicine.

I think your original point was perhaps meant to highlight two things. First, that the guilty party was a qualified real doctor. So he was. Sadly, a small proportion of real doctors and real vets in every country embrace the woo. He's still a homoeopath.

Second, the description of what he did to the patients didn't anywhere seem to cover anything recognisable as actual homoeopathy. True. Once rationality goes overboard, many of these people mix and match a number of whackjob approaches and therapies. However, he was definitely a homoeopath, even if it wasn't homoeopathy he was practising on these particular patients.

How about renaming the thread "Woo-woo medic qualified in homoeopathy pleads guilty to malpractice"?

Sadly, a medical degree doesn't confer immunity from being a total crank. It's to the shame of the medical and veterinary regulators that such people are allowed to capitalise on their education by offering whackjob therapies to the gullible public. (Let's hear it for the Swedish veterinary regulatory body, they know how to handle it!)

But this is still an alternative medicine story, not a real medicine story.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Slimething

Is there such a thing or are you merely trying to scare me?

Apparently there is in Arizona.

Edit: That was a brain fart. I meant Nevada (the state under question in the article).

Linda

[JJM]

Originally Posted by fls

Apparently there is in Arizona.

Linda

From the article:

Quote:

Although licensed homeopathic doctors in Nevada must also be licensed allopathic -- or traditional -- doctors, there are two separate regulatory boards. The Nevada Board of Medical Examiners regulates physicians and a homeopathic board regulates homeopathic doctors.

In Arizona, the homeopathetic license includes a lot that is not traditional (e.g., "minor surgery"); I wonder about the Nevada license.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Exactly. Just as Hans said.

That definition seems good to me, it just lacks the information "by homoeopaths and other cranks" after the word "applied". I rest my case.

I never studied "allopathy", nobody has ever called me an "allopath", and I would never refer to myself by that term. This is true for everyone qualified in actual medicine.

Do you seriously think real medicine involves "treatment of disease by remedies that produce effects different from or opposite to those produced by the disease"? Don't be silly. If that term applies to anything at all, it applies to the mediaeval theories of the four humours and purging and bloodletting and so on, or to perhaps Hindu Ayurvedic "medicine". Not to modern, evidence-based pharmacotherapeutic medicine.

So homeopaths infiltrated Webster's two decades ago as part of a conspiracy to discredit conventional medicine?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think your original point was perhaps meant to highlight two things. First, that the guilty party was a qualified real doctor. So he was. Sadly, a small proportion of real doctors and real vets in every country embrace the woo. He's still a homoeopath.

Second, the description of what he did to the patients didn't anywhere seem to cover anything recognisable as actual homoeopathy. True. Once rationality goes overboard, many of these people mix and match a number of whackjob approaches and therapies. However, he was definitely a homoeopath, even if it wasn't homoeopathy he was practising on these particular patients.

But why single out homeopathy in the title, as if that has something to do with the malpractice?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

How about renaming the thread "Woo-woo medic qualified in homoeopathy pleads guilty to malpractice"?

How about "Medical Doctor/Homeopath Who Used Alternative Medicine Pleads Guilty to Malpractice"?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Sadly, a medical degree doesn't confer immunity from being a total crank. It's to the shame of the medical and veterinary regulators that such people are allowed to capitalise on their education by offering whackjob therapies to the gullible public. (Let's hear it for the Swedish veterinary regulatory body, they know how to handle it!)

How does the Swedish veterinary regulatory body handle it?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But this is still an alternative medicine story, not a real medicine story.

Rolfe.

I agree there, but "alternative medicine" encompasses a wide variety of treatments, some of which are harmful, others of which are useless, and others of which may be superior to conventional medicine in some cases; e.g., see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94262

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

But why single out homeopathy in the title, as if that has something to do with the malpractice?

Because it does. He got away with being a piss-poor doctor because he called it practising as a homeopathic doctor.

Linda

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Rodney

So homeopaths infiltrated Webster's two decades ago as part of a conspiracy to discredit conventional medicine?

Webster's is merely giving a fairly accurate definition of how the word is used. In summary, "allopathy" is "that which is not homoeopathy". Which is how homoeopaths, who originally coined the term, use the word. It has filtered out a bit into more general usage, but it most certainly isn't a recognised term for pharmacotherapeutic medicine. It's just an insult, coined by Hahnemann, sometimes used naively by people who don't understand its real meaning or origin.

In Sweden, you will be struck off the veterinary register if you use homoeopathy.

Rolfe.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

Because it does. He got away with being a piss-poor doctor because he called it practising as a homeopathic doctor.

Linda

Evidence?

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Evidence?

Patient died of undiagnosed (by quack) cancer. Next!

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Slimething

Patient died of undiagnosed (by quack) cancer. Next!

Which has absolutely zero to do with him being a homeopath.

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Which has absolutely zero to do with him being a homeopath.

It's been so long since you challenged fls' point that you've even forgotten what you challenged. Suffice it to say that I don't care and that I want to debate you even less than that.

Read fls' post and then your post and someday maybe you'll remember what you were thinking. I can read. I'm not sure about you, though.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Which has absolutely zero to do with him being a homeopath.

It has everything to do with why he got away with something that would have resulted in a suspended (if not revoked) license with any other doctor.

And I don't think you can assume they are independent. It seems to me that the kind of thinking that leads one to choose to practice homeopathy is also the kind of thinking that leads to malpractice type errors. And the knowledge that he has immunity against being held responsible for these errors may influence the level of care he takes to ensure he is giving the best advice.

Linda

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

It has everything to do with why he got away with something that would have resulted in a suspended (if not revoked) license with any other doctor.

And I don't think you can assume they are independent. It seems to me that the kind of thinking that leads one to choose to practice homeopathy is also the kind of thinking that leads to malpractice type errors. And the knowledge that he has immunity against being held responsible for these errors may influence the level of care he takes to ensure he is giving the best advice.

Linda

Do you have evidence that homeopaths are found guilty of malpractice more frequently than medical doctors?*

*Bear in mind that Dr. Shallenberger is both a homeopath and a medical doctor.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Do you have evidence that homeopaths are found guilty of malpractice more frequently than medical doctors?*

*Bear in mind that Dr. Shallenberger is both a homeopath and a medical doctor.

First of all, I never made the claim that homeopaths are found guilty of malpractice. In most areas of practice, how could they be? Even where they do operate as a professional, the standards of practice for a homeopath are such than nobody could fail to meet them. They can only be guilty of malpractice as evaluated by the standards of the medical profession. And in most places they are not held to those standards.

They may be guilty of medical malpractice, but there is no mechanism (or the mechanism is impotent) in place to find them guilty.

Comparing the websites for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners with the Nevada State Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, I can find dozens of reports on complaint investigations and actions taken by the NSBME, while the Homeopathic Board seems to be focussed on lobbying to make it easier for CAM practitioners to operate. I searched through the minutes of their hearings and was disgusted by what I found. Physicians denied "allopathic" licenses (because of multiple episodes of malpractice and/or felony convictions) applying for homeopathic licenses and getting approved, complaints summarily dismissed, devices summarily approved. And I only found one aborted complaint investigation from 5 years ago. They seem to have no interest whatsoever in holding their practioners to any sort of standards. That speaks volumes right there.

Linda

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Do you have evidence that homeopaths are found guilty of malpractice more frequently than medical doctors?*

*Bear in mind that Dr. Shallenberger is both a homeopath and a medical doctor.

Homeopathy is malpractice. The fact that in most jurisdictions the medical authorities have chickened out of defining it as such is precisely the problem.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

First of all, I never made the claim that homeopaths are found guilty of malpractice. In most areas of practice, how could they be? Even where they do operate as a professional, the standards of practice for a homeopath are such than nobody could fail to meet them. They can only be guilty of malpractice as evaluated by the standards of the medical profession. And in most places they are not held to those standards.

They may be guilty of medical malpractice, but there is no mechanism (or the mechanism is impotent) in place to find them guilty.

There is if a homeopath is functioning as a medical doctor, as Dr. Shallenberger was. What percentage of homeopathic MDs are found guilty of malpractice?

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Homeopathy is malpractice.

How so?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

There is if a homeopath is functioning as a medical doctor, as Dr. Shallenberger was. What percentage of homeopathic MDs are found guilty of malpractice?

Aaaarghhh!!!

That's my point. The homeopathic board doesn't find their doctors guilty of malpractice (I can't find any indication they ever have) despite incredibly gross negligence. They clearly have no interest whatsoever in ensuring quality care to patients. That is only one of the incredible ironies about the DIM industry claims.

Linda

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

Aaaarghhh!!!

That's my point. The homeopathic board doesn't find their doctors guilty of malpractice (I can't find any indication they ever have) despite incredibly gross negligence. They clearly have no interest whatsoever in ensuring quality care to patients. That is only one of the incredible ironies about the DIM industry claims.

Linda

Yes, but in Nevada, a homeopath has to be an MD so it's possible to be found guilty of malpractice, as Dr. Shallenberger was. I'm trying to determine how common this is relative to non-homeopathic MDs.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Yes, but in Nevada, a homeopath has to be an MD so it's possible to be found guilty of malpractice, as Dr. Shallenberger was. I'm trying to determine how common this is relative to non-homeopathic MDs.

It's not possible to tell, as it's not possible to determine the numerator. If a physician is licensed as a homeopath in Nevada, and a complaint is filed against them in regards to patient care, that physician determines whether their practice in that case fell under homeopathic or "allopathic" practice. Since "allopathic" complaints are all investigated and repercussions can be severe, while there have never been any repercussions from a homeopathic complaint, it is a simple matter to make the complaint go away by declaring you were providing homeopathic treatment in that case (it doesn't matter whether the treatment was homeopathy or not). It then falls outside of the jurisdiction of the medical board and so cannot even be registered. This is consistent with the listing of disciplinary proceedings on the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners site. The disciplinary actions against homeopaths by the medical board only involved violations unrelated to patient care.

Linda

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

It's not possible to tell, as it's not possible to determine the numerator. If a physician is licensed as a homeopath in Nevada, and a complaint is filed against them in regards to patient care, that physician determines whether their practice in that case fell under homeopathic or "allopathic" practice. Since "allopathic" complaints are all investigated and repercussions can be severe, while there have never been any repercussions from a homeopathic complaint, it is a simple matter to make the complaint go away by declaring you were providing homeopathic treatment in that case (it doesn't matter whether the treatment was homeopathy or not). It then falls outside of the jurisdiction of the medical board and so cannot even be registered. This is consistent with the listing of disciplinary proceedings on the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners site. The disciplinary actions against homeopaths by the medical board only involved violations unrelated to patient care.

Linda

So why didn't Dr. Shallenberger claim that he was practicing homeopathy in the case of the cancer patient who died, rather than pleading guilty to malpractice before the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

So why didn't Dr. Shallenberger claim that he was practicing homeopathy in the case of the cancer patient who died, rather than pleading guilty to malpractice before the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners?

That's what he did do in the Ellen Gallagher case. And it worked (hence my comment that he used homeopathy to get away with being a piss-poor doctor). It looks like they found a detail in the Horton case that couldn't be subject to his Get Out Of Jail Free card, and used that to secure a guilty plea. You will notice that they only charged him with one specific act of malpractice when the description is of several separate acts of malpractice.

Linda

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by fls

That's what he did do in the Ellen Gallagher case. And it worked (hence my comment that he used homeopathy to get away with being a piss-poor doctor). It looks like they found a detail in the Horton case that couldn't be subject to his Get Out Of Jail Free card, and used that to secure a guilty plea. You will notice that they only charged him with one specific act of malpractice when the description is of several separate acts of malpractice.

Linda

But you stated in your previous post that "it is a simple matter to make the complaint go away by declaring you were providing homeopathic treatment in that case (it doesn't matter whether the treatment was homeopathy or not)." Obviously, based on Shallenberger's plea, it isn't always possible to do that. According to the deputy general counsel for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, Ed Cousineau, "there is no definitive line that says one treatment is medical and the other homeopathic. But peers review complaints and decide whether the doctor's treatment of the patient was reasonable."

[fls]

Originally Posted by Rodney

But you stated in your previous post that "it is a simple matter to make the complaint go away by declaring you were providing homeopathic treatment in that case (it doesn't matter whether the treatment was homeopathy or not)." Obviously, based on Shallenberger's plea, it isn't always possible to do that.

Yeah, Al Capone forgot to pay his taxes.

Quote:

According to the deputy general counsel for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, Ed Cousineau, "there is no definitive line that says one treatment is medical and the other homeopathic. But peers review complaints and decide whether the doctor's treatment of the patient was reasonable."

Right. After the doctor indicates where possible whether his peers are part of the medical board or the homeopathic board. The peers on the homeopathic board always seem to consider the treatment reasonable - preventable deaths notwithstanding.

Linda

[geni]

Originally Posted by Rodney

How so?

Because it claims to provide care but does not.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by geni

Because it claims to provide care but does not.

Exactly. I hope Rodney would regard it as malpractice if a doctor took all the ACE inhibitor tablets out of their packets and replaced them with plain sugar pills before giving them to his patients in heart failure.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Rodney

So why didn't Dr. Shallenberger claim that he was practicing homeopathy in the case of the cancer patient who died, rather than pleading guilty to malpractice before the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners?

Because that's not an excuse for failure to diagnose, is it?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Because that's not an excuse for failure to diagnose, is it?

Though of course, that's yet another fair definition of homeopathy.

Homeopathy (n.) An excuse for failing to make a diagnosis. See also, "amateurs messing with things they don't understand" and "professionals who have lost the plot"

[Mojo]

On the subject of homoeopaths/medical doctors and disciplinary actions, perhaps it is worth noting the difference in attitudes of two UK homoeopathic bodies towards malaria prevention, as mentioned here:

Quote:

But is characteristic of quasi-religious organisations that they split in to warring sects. The Faculty of Homeopaths (UK), in stark contrast to the Society of Homeopaths,

” . . . does not promote the use of homeopathy for the prevention of malaria."

The Society of Homeopaths is a body for non-medically regulated homoeopaths, who are only answerable to the SoH. The Faculty, on the other hand, is a "professional body for doctors and other statutorily regulated healthcare professionals", whose members are also regulated by non-homoeopathic professional bodies.