BCMA vs. BCNA - Somebody's Position is False (Guess Who?):

here, I cover some ground concerning the [bogus] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] and the [actual] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Medical Association [see 001., below]; and I quote from a recent Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] article regarding this matter, and cite NDNR's explicit iteration of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism sectarian belief [see 002., below]:

001.a. the BCNA has stated, regarding naturopathy, [archived since 2006 for posterity], in "About Naturopathic Medicine: The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" by Cassie, G. (? ?):

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#]1. [first and foremost!] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [this is naturopathy's vitalism, coded and claimed as science]."

Note: fascinating. So, VMN is science. Except, of course naturopathy is not being transparent / honest, since VMN is actually their vitalistic context which in fact is science-ejected. This is the typical naturopathic falsehood - claim science, hide the sectarian belief system you actually are beneath naturalistic language.

So, in the absurd land of naturopathy, lies of omission and obscurity are ethically fine, and the science-ejected is the same thing as the science-based. I find it ethically repugnant.

Additionally, BCNA has emphasized (here) :

"there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive."

Note: my answer - bullshit. NDs have a complete lack of integrity when it comes to what is truly science -- e.g., the school I attended claims that within the scientific is the vitalistic and teleological, and supernatural. That's idiotic. It's also fraudulent trade. They have redefined science to the point of idiocy.

001.b. the BCMA has stated, regarding its goals, in "The BCMA Submission to Minister George Abbott on Proposed Amendments to the Naturopathic Physicians Regulation" (2009-02-19) :

"the BCMA has a track record of successful collaboration with government to achieve our shared objectives of improving health care access and quality. We share the objective of providing the citizens of BC with access to health practitioners with adequate training who are able to offer assessment, advice, and services supported by scientific knowledge."

Note: I do not have knowledge of the BCMA stating such outright absurdities as the BCNA. So, I have a higher degree of trust in their scientific integrity - BCMA seems mainstream and does not appear to be an entity dedicated to promoting cultic health sectarianism.

002.a. the NDNR article "British Columbia Association: Scope of Practice Update" (NDNR 2009-09, Vol. 5, Iss. 9) written by BCNA President Kind, C. (ND NCNM) states:

"in April 2009 the British Columbia Ministry of Health Services formalized regulations for licensed NDs that recognize the education, training, expertise [!!!] and historical and contemporary practice of naturopathic physicians [...] the announcement formalizing regulations for NDs is a result of an extensive review of the evidence and benefits of science-based naturopathic medicine by the provincial government [{wow, what a thorough job -- now the nonscientific is scientific}...] the announcement recognizes the benefits to patients of allowing NDs to practice to a greater extent of their education and training, while streamlining and improving the delivery of healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine has been a licensed profession in BC since 1923 [...a] health profession [...] the organization representing BC’s medical doctors, British Columbia Medical Association (BCMA), refused to meet with us during the negotiation process and decided, instead, to spread comment that was both unconstructive and often false. There were many instances of egregious and even malicious media comment [...] the intent of the new legislation is to remove barriers to interdisciplinary practice which are not generally in the public interest [...and speaks of] the benefit of patients [...] although the BCMA seems unwilling to openly embrace the shared scopes model it benefits patients and provides better health options [...] for over 50 years, members of the profession, staff, family and patients have participated in an effort to [mis!!!]inform politicians and bureaucrats of what naturopathic medicine is and what it has to offer."

Note: so, we have the claim that the naturopathic is science-based, meets the ethical strictures of professionalism, and overall that naturopathy's 'ways' are a benefit to the public. I say 'more bullshit' - this severely harms the positions of professionalism and science. It's HUGELY absurd that the 'false ones a.k.a. naturopathy' can claim -- with impunity, while they hold a false position with impunity a.k.a an education racket -- that they have the higher ground regarding 'the scientific' and 'medical'.

It is an interesting question as to whether BCNA has libeled BCMA.

002.b. that same NDNR issue states naturopathy's essential science-ejected sectarian vitalism per publisher and SCNM ND Tallman, and kind.

003. what naturopathy has to offer, overall - falsehood, exploitation and the degradation of standards [the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled scientific, traded to a trusting public both clinically and educationally].