here, I cite the noninformative language of a California ND regarding naturopathy's essential premise [see 001., below]; then, I go to her alma mater for a more complete picture [see 002., below]:
001. Seddig, E. (ND NCNM 2001) states in "What Is The Difference Between A Naturopathic Doctor And A 'Regular' Doctor?" [vsc 2010-08-14]:
"naturopathic philosophy is based upon the following principles [...#4] the healing power of nature."
Note: and that's all you get.
002. well, let's go to National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] and see what they say:
002.a. the school's 2009-2010 Course Catalog [vsc 2010-08-14] states:
"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world and emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement and support of the inherent healing power of the body. Methods of treatment are chosen that respect the natural healing process [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [p.024...] principles of naturopathic medicine: the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [!!!]. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [p.025...] HOM 510 – Introduction to Homeopathy [...] students will learn about vitalistic medicine, the history of vitalism, the vital force in health and disease, the nature of medicines, and ways to affect the vital force [p.035]."
Note: so, there's naturopathy's HPN explained. HPN is a sectarian figment, much like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
002.b. but that's not my favorite NCNM page. This is, "Principles of Healing", which states:
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [!!!]. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the actions of vis medicatrix naturae [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."
Note: I wonder why this ND doesn't disclose naturopathy's absurdity, so the public can make an informed decision? After all, both NCNM citations label vitalism as 'in fact science', when vitalism is in fact GREATLY science-ejected. I wonder how safe it is to have someone embued with this kind of absurd thinking playing doctor?
