001. the University of Bridgeport states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":
"Principles and Practice 511 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine II [...] in addition to employing various natural medicines, students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."
Note: you can also get UB vitalism full-force here. So, vitalism is essential to naturopathy. I must remind readers that UB claims naturopathy, strictly speaking, is "science" / that a vital force is an objective scientific fact [see p.072, "the principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances"] / survives scientific scrutiny, while vitalism is preponderantly science-ejected!
002. Blackford, R. (? ?) states in "Bioethics Versus Liberal Society: A Reply to Margaret Somerville" (Quadrant, 2001-09-01 - homepage) [free registration may be required for the full text][for Blackford's Wikipedia entry, click here]:
"Kitcher rejects the presence of any 'vital force' or 'vital substance' in biological processes [...] this is correct. Vitalism is a discredited theory and no principled objection can be made to the ultimate reduction of biological systems and entities to their physical components […] I do reject the position that living things or biological processes contain some kind of non-physical vital substance or force […] vitalist positions are not supported by reason or by any other supposed 'way of knowing' [...] position[s] akin to vitalism might aptly be referred to as 'irrational' or 'superstitious'".
Note: oh, snap.