Tuesday, September 28, 2010

CCNM to CPSO: 'Look Very Closely At Us, and Embrace Us'

here, I cite from the 2010 submission by the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [CCNM] to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] regarding CPSO's 'Complementary Medicine' policy which asks for scrutiny of naturopathy [see 001., below]; and then I scrutinize, analyze and share their essential nonsense [see 002., below]:


"thank you for the invitation to comment on the current College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) policy [titled] 'Complementary Medicine' […] given the focus of the Ontario government on fostering more collaborative healthcare in support of better patient outcomes, this review is as timely as it is important [...] the growth in complementary medicine [...] the collaboration between naturopathic doctors and members of the CPSO […] CPSO’s Duties to the Patient include Collaborating with Patients and Others, this is an inadequate framework to address the nature of collaboration required for effective patient care […] we improve the collaboration between professions in order to provide the quality of care that patients in Ontario expect and deserve. CCNM is Canada's premier institute for education and research in naturopathic medicine. The college offers a rigorous four-year, full-time doctor of naturopathic medicine program [...requiring] standard premedical prerequisites and strong academic transcripts [...] program graduates must pass North American-wide entrance-to-practice examinations [...question] does the policy provide useful guidance? [...answer] within the field of complementary medicine it is critical to distinguish between the highly educated and regulated practitioners, and others […] the policy needs to distinguish between regulated professionals within the complementary field and others. In particular, with respect to naturopathic doctors the policy should state that 'it is not misconduct to refer' […] the policy requires physicians to 'act honestly and always in their patients’ best interests' our hope would be that the requirement should be that they 'act honestly and without bias' [...question] are there any issues not included in the current policy that should be addressed? [...answer] the policy provides far too little direction with respect to the interaction with respect to other medical practitioners […] naturopathic doctors are experts in [...such things as ] homeopathy [and] traditional Chinese medicine […] the policy should explicitly forbid the discontinuance of care to a patient based solely on the patient’s choice to see a regulated health professional providing complementary care […] the policy should also make it clear that many areas of complementary medicine require extensive education and training for safe and effective practice [...question] how could the policy be improved? [...answer] physicians should consider referring to naturopathic doctors as specialists in naturopathic medicine just the same way they refer to other medical specialists […] in arriving at a diagnosis and determining appropriate treatment plans naturopathic doctors rely upon laboratory reports in the same manner that physicians do […] naturopathic doctors possess a unique expertise […] given the long history of naturopathic medicine as a regulated health profession in Ontario […] any examination of a policy on complementary medicine must by necessity look closely at naturopathic medicine […] that policy review must focus most of all on approaches to collaboration between physicians and naturopathic doctors, as well as other regulated health professionals […] we appreciate the opportunity to provide input and we encourage the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to develop a policy in support of effective and efficient patient-centered care that recognizes the value of naturopathic medicine in healthcare. We would be pleased to meet with the committee that is conducting the review to provide detailed information with respect to the practice of naturopathic medicine in Ontario."

Note: where do I begin?

002. some skeptical analysis and scrutiny

-"better patient outcomes," really.  How do outcomes improve when naturopathic archaic crap is blended with much-better-vetted modern medical knowledge [e.g., like mixing placebo therapies like homeopathy and acupuncture with things which are actually having a specific effect]?  And since naturopathy confuses the public immensely by labeling that which is hugely science-ejected as science...[ah, the absurdity];

-"growth," and popularity doesn't justify legitimizing and cooperating with nonsense, otherwise known as "collaboration";

-"an inadequate framework," recalls, for me, the entire naturopathic framework, wherein the hugely science-ejected sectarian is falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny;

-"between professions", "a regulated health profession", "other regulated health professionals", "to provide detailed information with respect to the practice of naturopathic medicine in Ontario", except naturopathy isn't ethically able to be 'of the professions.'  Here's an example of manipulation and a lack of informed consent: an Ontario ND stating naturopathy's basis without actually / clearly stating naturopathy's science-ejected basis [oops, that's not an ND, my mistake, that's ALL OF THEM IN ONTARIO];

-"quality of care" and "regulated health professional" and "the same manner that physicians do", hmmm.  Is this quality of care: pseudodiagnostics and crap therapeutics?  Who deserves that?  And who expects such crap from a supposedly 'regulated profession?'  It's like a dentist using a Ouija board to determine which tooth is actually the one that is hurting you, and then using a fairy wand to fix it;


-"standard premedical prerequisites" and "strong academic transcripts," what's the point? You'll enter an ND program with high academic standards only to be, quite truly, mind-fucked: e.g., health science with be taught as equivalent to that which is exterior to science;
 
-"North American-wide entrance-to-practice examinations", which is the NPLEX, falsely labels homeopathy [empty pills postured as profoundly medicinal] as "clinical science";

-"highly educated and regulated practitioners, and others" and "unique expertise", but as we see [as I personally went through], ND education sucks and is a long, expensive road ending up in absurdity, nonsense, and irrationality;

-"regulated professionals", yeah, sure.  "Being is doing" and I don't see such;

-"it is not misconduct to refer", well, it IS.  CPSO is right to regard participation with NDs as misconduct.  Naturopathy itself is misconduct on so many levels;

-"act honestly and always in their patients’ best interests", hmmm.  Since when is it in someone's interest to participate in wacko archaic pseudomedicine or plain old pseudotherapeutics & pseudodiagnostics?  Aka naturopathy;

-"act honestly and without bias", when, actually, naturopathy is honestly and objectively NOT HEALTH SCIENCE.  The honest / non-biased evaluation of naturopathy is that it is a not-modern belief system from the 1800s that doesn't properly label itself;

-"other medical practitioners" and "other medical specialists", where we go with the 'we're medical' just like naturopathy's false self-labeling as a "branch of medical science";

-"experts", experts in nonsense and absurdity;

-"forbid the discontinuance of care", well naturopathy makes a mockery of physicianship and I can understand doctors' frustration;

-"extensive education and training for safe and effective practice" and "effective and efficient patient-centered care", but as we've seen, since naturopathy conflates scientific knowledge with archaic 'beliefy-stuff' and then labels the whole thing "science", how could they know what is safe and effective in such a knowledge-type muddle?  It is a mockery of professional education and training;

-"look closely at naturopathic medicine", yes, and see the nonsense;
Post a Comment