ND Rothenberg, Massachusetts Licensure, and a 'Science Subset Not Science' Absurdity

here [we go again] now in 2013 at HuffPo via ND Rothenberg, with that claim that naturopathy should be licensed, is rigorously vetted by way of science, and such [see 001., below]; but, once you illuminate the contents of 'the essentially naturopathic' [its ideas and methods], I don't think so [see 002., below]:

001. Amy Rothenberg ND writes in "Licensure for Naturopathic Doctors" (2013-01-14) [vsc 2013-01-15; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"after 18 years of legislative effort, countless hours educating [miseducating!] state senators and representatives with information about our training, education, scope of practice and more, the Massachusetts Legislature passed bill S.2377 [which is here...but] Governor Deval Patrick [...] chose to veto this bill last week [...]";

I will get back to the miseducation that naturopathy claims is education in 002., below.  And it is SO EASY to demonstrate.  So, the lawmakers don't mind licensure of falsehood and all that that entails in terms of their State's status as an accessory to such.  That's weird.  The governor may have accidentally done the right thing simply due to procedural issues inherent to that legislative session.

"from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians website [here...she quotes] 'naturopathic physicians combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science. Steeped in traditional healing methods, principles and practices [...] naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health' [...]";

so, the impression, to me at least, that is intended is that naturopathy [in its ideas and methods] survives rigorous scientific scrutiny.

"licensing NDs makes good sense [...]";

and that naturopathy makes sense, good sense [as opposed to nonsense or bad sense].

"consumers seek doctor-level practitioners of natural medicine [...]";

and that this is all 'top level academic rigor' worthy of the caliber 'doctorate'.

002. the science subset nonscience miseducation-absurdity at the heart of naturopathy:

002.a. ND Rothenberg is of NCNM, and her alma mater NCNM describes naturopathy's principles and methods in detail, illuminating exactly what the context of the "wisdom of nature" and the "body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health" is and how it is treated.  In "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-15] we're told that:

"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 [...] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...including] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the whole organism [...is] a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels." 

so, what I think again is intended here is the claim claim 'science subset naturopathy including vitalism, supernaturalism and homeopathy.  But, none of these things are within or supported by science.  And that is simply true.  There is no subtle argument there.  Vitalism is science-ejected [see the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing], supernaturalism is outside the realm of science by default [see the National Center for Science Education], and homeopathy is patent bunk [see the Wikipedia preponderance which explains: "the scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham; the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and within the medical community the provision of homeopathic remedies has been seen as unethical."].  So, when is patent nonscience falsely labeled science: naturopathy DOCTORAL education.  When is what is bunk falsely claimed as 'in fact'?  NCNM: science subset nonscience miseducation-absurdity.

002.b. her primary therapeutic is that nonsense known as homeopathy which she describes as "a distinct medical art and science."  Not science, no.

003. the bill (here as a searchable PDF) [vsc 2013-01-15], by the way, states [in part]:

"in accordance with naturopathic principles [...]";

which we know via NCNM to be science-ejected sectarian ideas.

"the practice of naturopathic health care shall include [...] homeopathic preparations [...]";

which is bunk yet homeopathy is mentioned 4 times.

"a standardized national examination, including the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination [...]";

and that exam absurdly and quite falsely includes homeopathy within science.

"to establish a code of ethics for naturopathic doctors [...] the board may issue an order to a licensee directing the licensee to cease and desist from unethical or unprofessional conduct if the board finds, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, that the licensee has engaged in such conduct [...]";

if science is nonscience in naturopathy -- if values are reversed and muddled so -- if big delineations are blended into unnecessary ambiguities, then how can good and bad be differentiated?  Following the logic of naturopathy, to be unethical and to be ethical, to be professional and unprofession is equivalent.