here, I do an experiment of sorts and search the Gale database 'accessmylibrary.com' with the search parameter >naturopathic medicatrix<. I got 11 hits, 9 of which were useful. What I am most interested in here is whether the actual vitalistic premise [a.k.a. VMN] of naturopathy is communicated clearly to the reader, i.e. whether that premise is honestly explained as a hugely nonscientific sectarian belief, or instead, naturopathy miscommunicates and misleads [take a guess, most of the time, what happens!]:
001. so, this is them:
001.a. "Epistemology of Naturopathic Medicine [...]", from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients [TLDP] 2005, by then NCNM student Krebs, R.M. (ND NCNM 2005) which states:
"[naturopathy's] six philosophical tenets [were] developed with the 1985 formation of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians: 1. vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] (the healing power of nature)."
Note: there is no clear communication of naturopathy's essential vitalism. There is no clear communication of vitalism's science-ejected status.
001.b. "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect? [...]", from the Journal of Family Practice 2005, by NDs Dunne (ND NCNM 1989), Kim (ND ?), Mittman (ND NCNM 1985), Barrett (ND NCNM 1986), Snider (ND Bastyr 1982), and Pizzorno (ND NCNM 1975), which states:
"[there are supposedly!!!] inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature [...] the goal of naturopathic medical education is to prepare clinicians for the challenges of general practice with a foundation in current medical science."
Note: again, VMN's context is not transparently communicated, while science, particularly medical science, is claimed as a foundation of the naturopathic.
001.c. "Naturopathic Medicine", from American Fitness 2004, by ND Wotton, B. (ND Bastyr 1995), which states:
"treatment plans recommended by NDs are based on the six guiding principles of naturopathic philosophy: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). NDs support the inherent healing wisdom of the body to promote, maintain or restore normal function [...] naturopathic doctors complete a four-year, graduate-level, accredited naturopathic medicine program to receive a doctorate of naturopathy (N.D.) [...] this program is similar to conventional medical education, with the first two years concentrating on medical sciences."
Note: again, VMN is not contextually explained and medical science expertise is claimed.
001.d. "Naturopathic Medicine, Integrative Medicine and Women's Health", from TLDP 2001, by ND Hudson, T. (ND NCNM 1984), which states:
"[there are] seven principles are the foundation for Naturopathic medicine: 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain and restore health [...] natural medicine has also matured, particularly in the areas of scientific research, educational institutions, virtual numbers of licensed practitioners, and professionalism, and is now poised to serve those who seek its gentle ways [...it is a] vitalistic holistic healing art [...based on] our vitalistic philosophy."
Note: now, we get some transparency, but I completely disagree with the label "profession" and "science" upon the essentially naturopathic.
001.e. "Healing Communities", from Alternatives Journal 2005, by ND Meyer, M. (ND ?), which states:
"naturopathic medicine bases itself on the principle vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...and later mentions] the vital force [VF]."
Note: but, there is no mention of where VMN/VF stands in relation to science.
001.f. "Naturopathy: Prevention Before Cure [...]", from Natural Life 1997, by Gervais, R. (ND Bastyr 1993), which states:
"vis medicatrix naturae -- the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief in the ability of the body to heal itself, given the proper opportunity [...] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature, to denote the body's ability to heal itself [...] the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences [...] the second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences [...] the therapeutic sciences."
Note: again, no explanation of VMN as being essentially science-ejected.
001.g. "William (Bill) Mitchell, Jr. ND [ND NCNM] (in memoriam)", from TLDP 2007, by ND Reichenberg-Ullman, J. (ND Bastyr 1983), which states:
"Bill had an unfailing belief and confidence in the power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature)."
001.h. "Botanical Solutions [...]", from TLDP 2002, by Walker, M. (? ?), which states:
"the human body holds a restorative capacity, the vis medicatrix naturae."
001.i. "Whole Foods [...]", from TLDP 2003, by NDs Meletis (ND ?) and Barker (ND SCNM), which states:
"our understanding of vis medicatrix naturae [...] Dr. Meletis [...] sits on scientific advisory boards."
002. I'm not surprised. Generally, science is claimed by naturopathy and their nonscientific vitalistic premise isn't transparently communicated -- lets call this misinformed consent. And lets call all this SLIMY.
Note: a lot of the NDs listed above are NCNM or Bastyr grads. You can go to NCNM's web page where they explicitly state the essential vitalism [and supernaturalism] of naturopathy and tell us all that such survives scientific scrutiny, which is false. You can go to Bastyr's page where they state that naturopathy is "science based natural medicine", which, again, is false.