Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - Connecticut Center For Health 2008, UBCNM, AMA:

Usually, practicing NDs don't honestly / transparently describe / fully disclose naturopathy's central science-ejected belief premise of vitalism, instead they mislabel, code and miscategorize this article of faith, violating a central ethical and legal obligation in a 'patient-physician interaction,' informed consent. Here's an example:

the NDs at the Connecticut Center For Health [CTCFH] state the central principle of naturopathy [see 001., below]; the Connecticut ND-granting school, the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM], expressly communicates naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise [see 002., below]; while the concept of vitalism is profoundly science-ejected [see 003., below]; so, the so-called profession of naturopathy does not abide by one of the central ethical obligations of medicine, informed consent -- but, I imagine a truly ethical description an ND might give of what they do [see 004., below]:

001. CTCFH states in "Naturopathic Principles":

"naturopathy and naturopathic medicine are based on the following principles: [#1, the primary principle:] the healing power of nature [HPN]. Nature acts powerfully, through healing mechanisms in the body and mind, to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems when they have broken down, by using methods, medicines and techniques that are in harmony with natural processes."

Note: HPN is not explained in terms of vitalism AT ALL -- which is what it actually contextually is to NDs. The NDs are: Germain (NCNM), Liva (NCNM), Samuelson (NCNM), Kane (Bastyr), Louden (NCNM), & Hunter (Bastyr). Why the ruse?

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

oo2.a. UBCNM states in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature":

"the healing power of nature, viz medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force."

Note: so, essentially / contextually inherent healing systems=HPN=vitalism. The school improperly labels such as science: fascinating.

oo2.b. CTCFH states such vitalism in "What Is Acupuncture":

"the practice of acupuncture is based on the understanding that a vital energy, referred to as 'qi' [...] flows along channels or meridians throughout our bodies. When this qi becomes blocked or does not flow freely, it can cause disharmony or disease. In order to correct this disharmony, the qi must be stimulated so that it moves freely again. Acupuncture uses very fine needles to stimulate specific points located on the body, in order to influence the qi of the body."

Note: nowhere is it stated that this is vitalism and as such is IMAGINARY / science-ejected, and mislabeling the imaginary as 'energy' is quite pernicious in terms of the integrity of science.

003. I've amassed various citations regarding the nonscientific status of naturopathy's essential vitalism here.

004. regarding informed consent:

004.a. the principle of informed consent, via the AMA's "Informed Consent":

"informed consent [...is] a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention [...] the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure [...] should disclose and discuss with your patient: the patient's diagnosis, if known; the nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure [...] this communications process [...] is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states [...] providing the patient relevant information has long been a physician's ethical obligation, but the legal concept of informed consent itself is recent."

004.b. what NDs could say, in order to abide by this MANDATORY ethical and legal principle of disclosure:

"as NDs we treat an imaginary / putative 'purposeful life spirit' figment aka qi aka 'life force' aka 'vital energy' aka 'vis medicatrix naturae' that we believe is the bioagency responsible for your life, sickness and health -- a concept that is truly profoundly science-ejected, yet, is the foundation for our worldview, one that we mislabel as 'science and not a belief system' because, honestly, accurately stating that our belief-based pseudomedicine is truly an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' is quite bad for business."

Note: I think it's obvious why NDs generally do not disclose the true nature of their central sectic belief premise / article of faith -- that 'old-time vitalism that's as scientific as the Tooth Fairy' -- and instead engage in miscontextualizing / camouflage / nondisclosure:

$$$$.