Monday, March 9, 2009

CAND NDs Falsely Claim the Ethical High Ground: BCNA Accuses BCMA of Deception 2009:

here, I cite an accusation by the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] that the British Columbia Medical Association [BCMA] is being deceptive when describing naturopathy's scientific basis [see 001. & 002., below]; yet, if you look at what is 'essentially naturopathic' -- their vitalism, supernaturalism, autoentheism & kind -- you find that such 'articles of faith' are well-without scientific support [see 003.a.-003.c., below]; also, I offer a diagnosis of naturopathy's 'knowledge typification retardedness' -- what I've termed 'epistemic conflation' [see 003.d., below]; and, regarding the actual ethical high ground, I take a look at a statement concerning why it is improper to label naturopathy a "profession" [see 004., below]:

001. the BCNA's homepage states {2009-03-09}:

"the BC Medical Association: misinformed [i.], and spreading deceptive [ii.] and disingenuous [iii.] comment not in the interest of patient care."

Note: some definitions [courtesy of the AHD 4th ed.]: i. "to provide with incorrect information"; ii. "the use of deceit [falseness]"; iii. "not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating." So, BCNA says that BCMA is basically being misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith.

002. BCNA then links to this pdf which states:

"[in spite of the BCMA's contention] there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive [...& quoting Pelletier, NDs have] 'solid grounding in biomedical sciences' [...naturopathy is a] profession [also, BCNA's Cassie states naturopathy & its principles are "science based" here {yes, they've spelled naturopathy wrong in that web address}]."

Note: specifically, BCNA is accusing BCMA of lying about naturopathy's scientific foundation. BCNA is stating that naturopathy is scientific, and that their science is in fact mainstream science. Also, BCNA is stating that they live up the ethical strictures of the professions. I beg to hugely differ: it is naturopathy that is in fact not scientific, essentially [they have unlimited the boundaries of science to include, absurdly: the science-ejected, the science-unsupported, and the unscienceable!!!], and it is in fact naturopathy that is engaging in deceit, incorrect information, and bad-faith [see 003., below].

003. naturopathy's nonscientific essential principles:

003.a. vitalism:

003.b. supernaturalism:

003.c. autoentheism [the belief that the "life force" within oneself is god; self-divinity & kind]:

Note: as a supernaturalism / theism of a particular stripe, this sectarian premise is also hugely unscienceable.

003.d. overall, naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' is this retardation [science has progressed, they developmentally haven't!]:

***the conflation of the scientific and the nonscientific then all labeled scientific aka epistemic conflation.

Note 01: now, BCNA lists naturopathy's principles on the Cassie page I cited above, stating after them "embracing these tenets [003.a. particularly], on a science-based platform." The primary principle, "vis medicatrix naturae" [003.a.] isn't even honestly described on this page as being the actual 'purposeful life spirit / god power within you' woo that it actually is! So, therein, it is BCNA that can be best described as misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith. Naturopathy does not accurately describe themselves, they falsely label themselves, and then they have the nerve to posture from an supposedly ethically righteous position.

Note 02: as a result, naturopathy's self-labeling of "science" is really meaningless, because for naturopathy, science is no longer science at all. This seems like thought from 1000 years ago, when any kind of knowledge could have been labeled science [the Latin 'to know' -- the NDs don't seem to acknowledge that science isn't just a stick-on label that can be applied to any kind of knowledge]. But, truly, an article of faith isn't even processable through science, and naturopathy's ultimate claim that an article of faith is the same thing as the science-based is hugely science-illiterate.

004. the strictures of the professions. Ironically, the university that ripped me off -- I was a UB ND student 1998-2002 -- has a current faculty member who recently coauthored a very useful paper concerning the professions and sectarian medicine:

"the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves. However, this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional [fiduciary duty]. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). This social contract imparts great freedom on all professions, but with this freedom comes great responsibility. When an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience. In addition, it is reasonably expected that the services he or she receives are being provided for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient, and not for any other reason. The financial benefit to the professional is secondary, and results from the degree of clinical benefit received by the patient. Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery."

Note: self-labeled science but essentially HUGELY not science, naturopathy doesn't even meet the legal standards of regular commerce per 'caveat emptor' -- you do not get what they claim they are selling [as a patient, as a person going to one of their schools etc.]. Therein, it is absurd to call this fraudulent area 'professional'.

Post a Comment