Monday, July 14, 2014

ND Eckel of Oregon's 'Beneath Board' OBNM, in-Depth

here, having established that OBNM / the State of Oregon naturopathy apparatus claims quite absurdly and falsely that the patently science-exterior 'essentially naturopathic' survives scientific scrutiny / is science-based, I visit the practice web site of ND Eckel, a member of that Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine to see what he says and DOESN'T say about naturopathy! In terms of what's missing, I wonder, how beneath-board* is this Board (wink-wink) by way of its members?

*opposite of aboveboard, keeping in mind that to be aboveboard, a full disclosure of naturopathy's epistemic farce would be required [my comments are in unquoted bold below].

001. as background, the public is told, by the State of Oregon, in "Board of Naturopathic Medicine: About Us", archived 2013:

"vision: to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public in the matters of care provided by naturopathic physicians in Oregon [...] the mission of the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine is to protect the public by improving upon standards of care offered by licensed practitioners through ensuring competency in education, and enhancing communication with the profession and the public [...]"; 


ah, an 'of the professions claim'!  Well, I've already established that at NCNM, the OREGON naturopathy school, science as a category is quite incompetently wielded: e.g., homeopathy, vitalism and supernaturalism are claimed to survived scientific scrutiny!  I would expect that this 'public protection' includes a medical consumer's right to make an informed decision regarding naturopathy, in the sense of medical ethics and consumer rights, both clinically and educationally.  But, how can that be happening if nonscience is being labeled science  So, I wonder, what comes first?  The protection of naturopathy [unprofessionalism] or the protection of patient rights [professionalism]?  What is being communicated at this Board ND's web site?

"programs: the Board is authorized by law to examine, register and license naturopathic physicians [...] the Board enforces compliance with the naturopathic statute through administrative procedures, continuing education, discipline of licensees, and court actions. The board also certifies doctors qualified to practice [...]";

if patent nonscience is allowed to be labeled science, like at NCNM and at the Board Oregon.gov web pages, which it is, then I don't have much hope for the integrity of this Board and its processes! By the way, the ND statute requires adherence to naturopathic principles.  So, being that a central context of naturopathy's principles is that nonscience and science are the same thing, science, isn't this all just farcical crazy implementing the farcical crazy they were educated aka inured into?

002. the practice* web pages of OBNM Board member ND Eckel:

*what does a naturopath do, 'in-practice', particularly about communicating naturopathy? 


002.a. according to his 2012 archived bio. page, he is an NCNM graduate;

002.b. in "Naturopathic Care at Nature Cures Clinic" we get naturopathy's central vitalistic principle with the vitalism CODED:

"the following principles, shared here are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [...] acknowledge, respect, and work with individuals’ self-healing process";

003. so the big, glaring question:


if it is OK for the members of Oregon's regulatory board to not engage in the quite reasonable 'informed consent ethical standard' / transparency that medicine and professions must abide by -- and it looks OK for them to do this because they do this at their own practices' online pages, as we see here with ND McNiel -- is this regulatory board a farce just as naturopathy's science status is a farce, since naturopathy's needs are being placed first, not the public's?
having studied naturopathy for so long, it is not surprising that not only is the epistemic categorization of its principles a mislabeling, but that even up at the highest echelons of regulation membership, there isn't clear communication of:
a) the ideas that define naturopathy (they are either omitted or coded);
b) the nonscientific status of those ideas (good luck getting that admission).
Post a Comment