illegal medicine

by garybuss 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    This is an area that needs to be watched. The Watch Tower Corporation at the agent level gives this type of medical advice.

    *************
    Trial starts on charge of illegal medicine

    BY KEVIN DOBBS Argus Leader published: 3/25/02

    Case stems from woman's death

    The South Dakota Attorney General's office says Colleen Harvey of Mitchell is guilty of deceptive trade practice and practicing medicine without a license - actions that hastened the death of a Brookings woman with breast cancer.

    The defendant, however, dismisses the claims, insisting that she is an established natural-health adviser who provides clients with information on diet, nutrition and other homeopathic remedies - and nothing more.

    As the case against Harvey gets under way today at the Davison County Courthouse in Mitchell, the medical and natural health industries will be watching closely because the first-of-its kind complaint in South Dakota could clarify what an unlicensed health practitioner can do when advising a client, long a gray area in health and law.

    The case, to be presided over by Circuit Judge Lee Anderson, could also decide the future of Harvey's 10-year-old business and open the door for a civil lawsuit from the deceased Brookings woman's family. But this is not a criminal case decided by a jury; rather it's a hearing after which the judge will determine Harvey's professional merit and perhaps whether she must cease operation of her business, one that she estimates brought in some 600 clients in the past decade.

    Judge Anderson is scheduled to begin hearing opening statements at 9 a.m. today and attorneys involved in the case expect his ruling to come by Friday. The complaint was originally filed against Harvey last May 31.

    Harvey left comment on the specifics of the case to her attorneys, but she said she maintains her innocence and continues to run her alternative health business in Mitchell. "We just want to get to court and get this resolved," Harvey said.

    The state began investigating Harvey after the death of Dorothy Dietrich of Brookings in June 2000. Harvey, the state alleges, illegally treated Dietrich for breast cancer.

    As a natural-health adviser, Harvey has said she worked with Dietrich at different points between 1995 and 2000, but that she only provided Dietrich information on diet, nutrition and healthy living. Harvey said she told Dietrich to see a medical doctor for treatment of cancer.

    But the attorney general says that at some point in her consultations with Dietrich, Harvey convinced Dietrich that cancer was curable with alternative means such as nutritional supplements. It is illegal for anyone but a medical doctor to diagnose and treat diseases such as cancer.

    Court documents and interviews with Dietrich's family members show that her illness was diagnosed as breast cancer in the winter of 1999 and that physicians advised her that a mastectomy was a viable option to treat it. But Dietrich opted instead for noninvasive treatment. She traveled as far as Mexico for alternative therapies, but the process quickly grew too expensive. Dietrich then turned to Harvey in hopes that she could help in some way.

    But Dietrich's cancer spread into her brain, and on June 24, 2000, the 62-year-old woman died in a Brookings hospital.

    She left behind the question of whether Harvey merely advised her on diet and lifestyle choices to prop up her immune system and bolster Dietrich's health in general, as Harvey has said, or whether she ventured into the realm of medicine and illegally attempted to treat cancer, as the state claims.

    Court documents show that Paul Dietrich, the surviving husband of Dorothy Dietrich, told the state that Harvey had treated his wife for cancer on several occasions between March 1999 and March 2000.

    The state also claimed that a tape recording of a session between Dorothy Dietrich and Harvey proves Harvey had told Dietrich that with other patients supplements, detoxification and other non-medical means have helped treat disease - indicating that Harvey was advising her clients about cancer treatment.

    Paul Bachand, assistant attorney general, is in charge of the state's complaint.

    Harvey's defense, meanwhile, will insist that she never offered to treat Dietrich's cancer and that in a decade as a natural health adviser, she never held herself out as a medical doctor.

    Her lead attorney, Ann Richtman of Superior, Wis., said several of Harvey's clients will testify to her credibility. She also said that the recording the state maintains incriminates Harvey is misinterpreted.

    "The implication that the state has made is that as a result of seeing Colleen (Harvey), Dorothy (Dietrich) died," Richtman said. "But Dorothy always refused conventional treatments, and so it seems to me that what happened with Dorothy and her cancer had to do with Dorothy's decisions, and nothing to do with Colleen."

    Regulation

    The Food and Drug Administration and other federal and state agencies can regulate the alternative health industry.

    But those agencies have staffing limitations that make it impossible to closely monitor every alternative health operation. Agencies usually intervene only when a person is hurt.

    Example: The FDA completed about 160 inspections out of 1,000 manufacturers of nutritional supplements in 1999 and 2000. It handed out penalties only 39 times, owing in part to vague rules governing the industry.

    The law says that sellers of alternative health products can't claim to treat specific ailments or cure diseases. They may claim, however, that a nutritional supplement can promote better blood flow or stronger bones or a bolstered immune system - things that could ward off or help fight disease.

    In the end, attorneys said, the Harvey case could shed new light on the fuzzy parameters of alternative health.

    Reach reporter Kevin Dobbs at [email protected] or 605-977-3924.

    http://www.argusleader.com/news/Mondayarticle3.shtml


    *************

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I've commented on this in the past in this forum as an area in which the WTBS might have some legal exposure. I didn't get any knowledgeable response yay or nay.

    Anyone???

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    It's a nice article, thank you for sharing.

    I don't see a connection between this and the Watchtower.

    Quakery has been around for a long time, if indeed that's what this is. From what I can see, this woman lived just as long with alternative treatment as many women do with conventional treatment. So have many others. The people who really care the most about cases like this is mainstream medical practicioners, who don't want to lose a big chunk of income.

    Bad situation all around.

  • TD
    TD

    Hi,

    I think any conceivable connection would lie in the fact that the CCJW/WTBS has not seen fit to treat the blood issue as purely religious and have both through their own church publications and (especially) through the mouths of HLC members offered specific comment on the medical propriety of various procedures, sometimes as they pertain to individual cases.

    I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea to what extent they would be shielded by the religious protection afforded by most countries. However I do know that the average “joe” needs to be extremely careful when writing on a medical topic.

    Even if all you are doing is writing a fluffy article about the latest diet or exercise program in a trendy health magazine, a disclaimer informing the audience to “always consult with your physician before starting any __________ program” (fill in the blank) is a necessity.

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    The WTS in former times was probably more exposed than more recently. It used to make outrageous claims about special wheat, aluminum, vaccinations, etc. The lawyers running the corporation now are probably the ones keeping them out of court these days.

    Nevertheless, somehow the average JW believes that blood is never needed by competent physicians, that blood is both bad and a dangerous medicine. Where did they get this idea? Find the source of that impression and you may have a case of “practicing medicine.”

    In addition, the average JW has long held the notion that medicine in general is bad, and that physicians are scheming, money grubbing scoundrels. The WTS blood policy fits this theme; they have alluded in their literature to the money made by the “blood industry” as a large part of the reason doctors push transfusions on patients.

    With this in mind I was disappointed to see Dung say the following in her post: “Quakery has been around for a long time, if indeed that's what this is. From what I can see, this woman lived just as long with alternative treatment as many women do with conventional treatment. So have many others. The people who really care the most about cases like this is mainstream medical practicioners, who don't want to lose a big chunk of income.”

    She shows by this mind set that of the JW mentality still influences her thinking. “Lived just as long…” What an outrageous statement in the face of testimony from her physicians that she qualified for a mastectomy! Many women live far longer that this woman did when they have the recommended surgery. Granted, she may have refused surgery, but this case is to determine if the defendant helped persuade her to decline the doctors recommendation.

    From personal experience I can say that Dung is correct with respect to a very small percent of the physician population. Just as in any population, there are a few undesirables among physicians, but her remarks seem to imply that a large portion, perhaps a majority of physicians push their agenda irrespective of patient needs or preferences in order to make money.

    Most physicians I know and have worked with are very interested in the science of their profession and what holds up to scientific scrutiny. At the same time many will fight for patient’s rights. For example, they will treat JWs even though that patient population refuses what they sometimes feel is in their best interests. Few physicians, in my experience refuse to care for JWs, even when those same JW patients leave their office and “bad-mouth” them to others in the community.

    Perhaps Dung works with scum-bags in her professional career. If so, I am sorry. It has been my privilege to know and work with many fine physicians and it is my impression that these are in the majority, though traditional WTS propaganda would have us believe otherwise.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit