here, I cite from a recent Times Colonist article on British Columbia naturopathy [see 001, below; my comments are in bold]:
001. Katherine Dedyna reports in "B.C. Naturopaths the First in Canada to Prescribe Medications" [saved 2011-02-27]:
"B.C. naturopaths have sought prescription drug access since 1958 [...now] just about every day, Oak Bay naturopathic doctor Kristin Schnurr [ND CCNM] provides a paying patient with [...] a prescription [...] a move that medical doctors protested and still strongly oppose [...]";
So, for some strange reason, in Ontario, naturopathy is termed "drugless". Wow, so much consistency - 'it must be natural and not a drug, until it doesn't have to be.'
"'it's nice to have the backup of a prescription if necessary' she says. 'And for some infections, the sooner you get the medication in, the better the outcome for the patient [...] I think it makes a big difference on a number of levels - for patient safety, first and foremost' [...]";
Isn't what's really being admitted here is that "natural" remedies don't work and are dangerous for ACTUAL problems that need ACTUAL treatment!? Is the irony just killing me?
"Dr. Bob Vroom, deputy registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons [...] and the 11,000-member B.C. Medical Association see a public safety risk, saying naturopaths do not have the training to make a medical diagnosis, never mind prescribe medical drugs to treat it [...]";
Hear, hear.
"'the training of naturopaths and the basis under which they operate [...] is not a scientific education - [and] is problematic when someone reaches for a pen and prescribes a substance' [they state...]";
I can testify to the nonscience sectarian "nature" [wink-wink] that literally couches 'the essentially naturopathic' -- the purposeful life spirit figmentation, the Vis, that they claim over-arches all things and that they falsely claim as scientific fact.
"the common-sense health and nutrition advice [which exists in-itself anyway], and rational use of some herbs by NDs [though so little of that junk is worth the trouble] is combined with 'a huge array of unscientific practices,' Vroom says [...e.g.] vega testing [...]";
Hear, hear. How about homeopathy, too?
"'naturopaths are not trained to make a medical diagnosis and prescribe medical treatment, so we can't support independent prescribing by naturopaths,' says Dr. Ian Gillespie, Victoria-based president of the BCMA [...]";
Hear, hear.
"naturopathic medicine is 'science-based natural medicine' [...] says the website of the B.C. [...]";
How is that true when naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected vitalistic and science-exterior supernatural falsely claimed as scientific? The science label upon naturopathy is completely NOT TRUE because the context that is distinctly naturopathic is actually based upon the science-ejected. How dense are people?
"a major tenet of naturopathy is that 'the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment' the BCNA says [...]";
Ah, coded vitalism. So much for professionalism and informed consent.
"naturopath Kristin Schnurr [...] takes into consideration 'biochemical, structural, energetic and mental/emotional aspects of health' her website notes";
If that's not coding I don't know what is. How scientific is it to misuse the term "energy" when you are really talking about the vitalistic-spiritistic science-exterior?
Overall note:
the absurdity continues. The essentially naturopathic is not science, but it postures so. It contains some science, but it is not science at its core as its core is definitely not medical science.
It's a core that you'll rarely hear naturopaths transparently iterate -- they've been trained to obfuscate, or they simply aren't analytical thinkers --and it's a core that shallow reporting never gets at.
Notice the false balance of this article: science as a quality is bandied about as if it is an opinion. There's ACTUALLY a solid answer as to what naturopathy is, essentially.
But, this article perpetuates the false balance of 'science as merely an opinion-laden label'.
the absurdity continues. The essentially naturopathic is not science, but it postures so. It contains some science, but it is not science at its core as its core is definitely not medical science.
It's a core that you'll rarely hear naturopaths transparently iterate -- they've been trained to obfuscate, or they simply aren't analytical thinkers --and it's a core that shallow reporting never gets at.
Notice the false balance of this article: science as a quality is bandied about as if it is an opinion. There's ACTUALLY a solid answer as to what naturopathy is, essentially.
But, this article perpetuates the false balance of 'science as merely an opinion-laden label'.
