*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 McNiel:
*what does a naturopath do, 'in-practice', particularly about communicating naturopathy?
002.a. at the homepage of "Arbora Natural Medicine Solutions" (2014 archived) we're told:
"Arbora Natural Medicine Solutions, P.C., is a naturopathic medical office serving the Rogue Valley [...]";
how ironic, rogues!
002.b. her bio. page tells us she is a Bastyr ND graduate (BU says 2004).
002.c. the MONEY page "Naturopathic Medicine", archived 2013, states:
"naturopathic medicine can be primary and curative. Naturopathic doctors look at a person in a holistic way, taking into account emotion and lifestyle issues and how these issues affect physical disease. As well as providing alternative treatment, naturopathic doctors are licensed in Oregon to serve as primary care physicians who perform conventional blood work, order diagnostic tests and utilize pharmaceuticals as necessary. Naturopathic doctors refer to specialist physicians when indicated. Treatments include: diet therapy, nutraceuticals, herbal medicine, homeopathy, lifestyle changes, counseling, bio-identical hormone therapy, compounded and conventional medications."
and that's ALL you get, in terms of the web! So, this Board ND fails the test of communicating transparently the epistemic status of naturopathy so that the public can make an informed decision, IMHO. Where is the "life force" that supposedly survives "objective observation" and scientific scrutiny? In other words, where is the admission of naturopathy's sectarian beliefs and the typical false claim of it all being science-based? There is the science-exterior homeopathy, and holistic, but holistic without the typical spiritual? That too sounds like a coding. So, to get to naturopathy's essence, first you'd have to visit Bastyr itself perhaps, and then the OBNM page. And then you'd have to do enough research into science and nonscience in order to understand naturopathy's epistemic farce. So, the 'essentially naturopathic' is quite beneath-board by way of this Board member's online commerce presence!
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).