Re: [ACA-Members] CCE Receives Recommendation for Continuing Accredi

[Guest guest]

9a. Re: [ACA-Members] CCE Receives Recommendation for Continuing Accredi Posted by: "ann durrant" annmdurrant@... Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:28 pm (PST) Dear Dr. Durrant and List serve I don't know what the Texas law about devices is. I do know the our Oregon ETDSP rule clearly would have a space for us to use the device in question. I would like to put in my 2 cents and that is to stay confident and empowered during these times. I think that we need to grow together as a group appreciating our unique skills even if the steps taken seems too small to solve all those mounting issues. To help with group growth the FUNctional chiropractic council is having another rounds meeting on January 28th from 9am to 11am. come to listen or present a case study. Contact me if you are interested. Sincerely, Judith Boothby I'm gathering that the CCE has a year to provide additional information to the DOE's Advisory Committee on Quality and Integrity in order to continue accreditation after Dec. 2012. I'd have to look at other old posts to see if this is typical red tape of the accreditation renewal process, or whether dissent in our field is leaking over to the ODE and affecting our accreditation. But, the NACIQI said that our CCE substantially meets its standards, and the dissenting testimony was not relevant to that issue. (Maybe embarrassing. ...)  If there's an action step that you are recommending the OCA takes regarding CCE, Vern, I'm missing it.I read Pete's forwarded message with consternation, to say the least. I completely don't understand how a judge's ruling could go against statute/practice act. Was he paid off? How was he influenced by the AMA?This gives me pause in our discussion of

subluxation language in our practice act, but how can the AMA or OMA get into our practice act to change what has been determined by CCE and statute to be within our scope? I think that the OCA Board should review (again) the language of our practice act and make sure there is no room for its language to be abused in any way to narrow our scope, and to make sure it is iron clad/inclusive of diagnosing/evaluati ng function and current modalities as well as ESTP. If there is a way to strengthen it that does not put us in greater peril by opening up our practice act, let's discuss that. I'd like to hear what Dr. Lind would like to see as expansion of our scope. I'd like to hear what Dr. Zeilinski thinks w/r to making sure Functional Neurology is protected. I'd like to hear more from Dr. Brock about the Texas case when he recovers from the mugging. D