Monday, December 16, 2013

Naturopathy in The Toronto Star via Tim Caulfield 2013-12-16

here, I cite from a recent opinion/commentary on naturopathy in the Toronto Star by Tim Caulfield [see 001., below]; then, I quote from the Ontario Medical Association [see 002., below]:

001. Tim Caulfield, who "holds the Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta" writes in "Naturopaths and the Creep of Pseudo-Science" (2013-12-15):

"Ontario naturopaths are pushing hard to become a self-regulating profession, with expanded rights to prescribe drugs and order tests [...]";

as I've said for a long time, 'can you be a profession if you are based on falsehood?'  As in: how can the public engage in a fiduciary relationship -- which is what is at the heart of professionalism in the long-standing, classical sense, 'credat emptor' --  with what is false and deceptive?  For instance, apart from what Mr. Caulfield has mentioned, I just received by snail-mail, an enticement from UB naturopathy claiming 'science subset naturopathy' [which I wrote about here].  But, I went to that school, and I've studied naturopathy for twenty year just about, and I know otherwise: here is that school's now mainly buried / coded, vitalistic / science-exterior core.  Quite professional!

"the Ontario Medical Association is pushing back [...] this is not a turf war [...] this is about patient safety and, more fundamentally, the role of science in the Canadian health care system [...] naturopathic medicine, despite its claims to the contrary, is not evidence-based [...] if naturopathic medicine were governed by science, as practitioners increasingly claim, they would not provide: detoxification services, homeopathic remedies, most herbal remedies, and cosmetic facial acupuncture [...] services [which] are the core of naturopathic medicine [...] a pseudoscience-based practice [...]";

yes, yes, yes.  Or no, no, no: unless, science now contains the nonscientific and science-ejected such as naturopathy's ideas and therapeutics.  Of course, they have borrowed other things which are science-based and term them naturopathic when they are not 'essentially naturopathic': but, isn't that truly the issue with this Trojan Horse?  To formulate: science + nonscience = science, in the naturopathic world.  That's a ruse.  And here is where I keep a collection of the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctor's claim that naturopathy is categorically science which has such jewels as: "science-based, safe and effective, patient-centered care are at the heart of all ND care."

"[and Mr. Caulfield speaks of future] legal and ethical challenges of formally legitimizing the pseudo-scientific [...] legitimizing magical thinking [...]";

hear, hear.  I have termed this "licensed falsehood."

"[naturopathy] is not wedded to a scientific world view. It is a practice built on a philosophy based in the 'healing power of nature' or, to quote the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, the 'principle of healing through the co-operative power of nature' [HPN] and the 'individual's inherent self-healing mechanisms' [ISHM]. This kind of rhetoric may sound inviting, but it is scientifically meaningless [...]";

I can go farther with that one!  Instead of that HPN-ISHM being merely scientifically meaningless, there's the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctor's promoted book by CCNM graduate ND Iva Lloyd's "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 9781552787786, 2009) [who is a reiki master] that tells us in the chapter "Naturopathic Principles": "vitalism and holism represent the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defences." So, HPN-ISHM has meaning, in the science-ejected sense!

Note: there's also a "longer version" with hypertext links.

002. at the Ontario Medical Association online, I found "Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 179: 'An Act to Amend Regulated Health Professions Statutes' September 2009" which states:

"the OMA believes that naturopaths should maintain their current scope of practice, including access to natural products [...] we believe that the use of pharmaceuticals or synthetic drugs is completely outside naturopathy's educational framework and scope of practice [...and a footnote states] Riyad Shahjahan. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. April 2004, 10(2): 409-412. This article suggests naturopathy and other complementary and alternative therapies do not fit within a scheme that is predicated upon the values and language utilized by biomedicine. In fact, the author, a complementary medicine practitioner expressly rejects the scientific method."


oh, and what a strange educational framework it is!  To use CCNM as an example, which is in Ontario, you have the abjectly science-ejected per that magical life force / qi figmentation and the therapies that claim to influence it, falsely placed within the category of science per "a rigorous scientific foundation."
Post a Comment