dare I term the status of the naturopath METAphysician, as opposed to physician, when you get-right-down-to-it? Yes.
"to uphold the classic tenet: first, do no harm [...]";
there is SUCH an interesting HIDDEN context to this idea-that-isn't-fleshed-out, which I talk about below in 002.
"we'd better educate patients. Knowledge is power, so we work to educate patients [...] we give good explanations as to why and how things work both with the body and with our approaches. We welcome questions from our patients. During this information age, we are often partners with patients who may come in quite well-informed [...]";
oh, how the irony is killing me: claiming to educate, inform, and explain without truly sharing / revealing naturopathy's beliefs clearly! Knowledge IS power and even holding back facts is, in terms of successful marketing, A POWERFUL MODUS OPERANDI for naturopathy [there's some Latin for you, naturopaths-who-love-Latin]. Not mentioning in the Huffpo article naturopathy's absurd position of science subset nonscience IN NO WAY is a "good explanation".
"I love having a medical philosophy that is clear and consistent and that does not shift. I love being able to look at new approaches that may come along and to ask myself, 'is this within the bounds of the philosophy I so embrace?' And if not, to let it go' [...] my naturopathic medicine roots [...]";
I call this the 'ND sectarian creed'. This type of stance, which here I applaud for its sectarian honesty, reminds me of a quote I often use from Popular Science published around the year 1900. It states: "science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed." At Phi Beta Kappa, I'm reminded that "for over two and a quarter centuries, the Society has embraced the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression." And I was a PBK long before I got snookered into naturopathy school.
"[a naturopath has] an elegant philosophy [...] one that leads to effective treatment [...]";
hmmm. If naturopathy's philosophy is so elegant, why it is SO EASY to destroy with the information in middle school science textbooks? And effective? Since when are such things as homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, applied kinesiology, reiki, colonics, and chelation therapy for heart disease effective?