001. "To Endorse Naturopathy Is To Reject Science: The Issues Between Medical Doctors and Naturopaths Go Beyond A Turf War"(2009-02-26):
"the naturopath issue [...per BC] officially endorsing and legitimizing a practice via government action [...] is not [...] a 'turf' war among professions [...e.g.] it is not [...] one set of health care professionals (medical doctors) trying to exclude another group [naturopaths...and] it is also not solely about choice [...] a much bigger issue is at play: what type of evidence are we as individuals, and as a society, going to consider in making health policy decisions? [...this issue concerns] the very nature of evidence and knowledge [...specifically] do we want a system based on scientific principles that can be counted on to be reproducible and predictable [modern medicine], or one based on anecdote and belief [{naturopathy}...because, truly] naturopathy still resides on the fringes of conventional scientific inquiry [and that's generous!]. In fact, it is often held up as the archetypical anti-science practice [{that's more like it!}...] the practice of medicine is based on science, not on a particular immutable faith or worldview [naturopathy's belief system / dogmatic 'science-ejected / -unsupported ideology']. Yes, there are issues with the practice of medicine, but since it is based on science it is capable of changing, evolving and defining best practice for all of our benefit. If naturopathy were held to the same generalizable scientific principles would naturopathic schools be teaching homeopathy and naturopathic manipulation? No [...] we simply need to ask if the B.C. government has made an explicit decision to drift further from the use of scientific principles in its assessment of health care."
002. for starters, for the uninitiated:
one nonscientific principle of naturopathy is its essential vitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment