The Guardian: Sydney Naturopath Arrested for "Reckless Grievous Bodily Harm and Failure to Provide for a Child Causing Danger of Death"

here, shocking abuse of an infant by way of naturopathy in Australia:

001. the Guardian's Melissa Davey reports in "Sydney Naturopath Arrested After Baby Comes Close to Death on Treatment Plan" (2015-07-09):

"on Thursday child abuse squad detectives arrested a naturopath, a 59-year-old woman from Leppington in south-west Sydney [...] also a registered nurse and midwife [...] alleging she ordered a treatment plan for the baby which resulted in serious harm [...] an eight-month-old baby boy came close to death after he was placed on a naturopathic treatment plan [...] for his eczema [...] which left him suffering severe malnutrition and developmental problems, NSW police have said [...] she was charged with reckless grievous bodily harm and failure to provide for a child causing danger of death [...] the child’s mother is facing the same charges [...]";

this is horrible, and horribly stupid on the part of the parent.  Naturopathy, as in the essentially naturopathy, is of course stupid essentially.

"some therapies that fall under the naturopathy umbrella, such as iridology and homeopathy, have no evidence for their effectiveness [...]";

and yet in Australia the NDs often have the credential BSc, as in science subset naturopathy.

"an evidence-based medicine specialist with Bond University, Professor Chris Del Mar, said the naturopathic industry was almost 'impossible' to regulate, given there were no restrictions on who could call themselves a naturopath. The most sure way to prevent harm from naturopathic practises was to question its practitioners and understand what constituted good evidence for the effectiveness of treatments, he said. 'The only effective way to prevent this is to try and encourage people to be more health literate, and that means not just knowing about stuff, but knowing what to ask and how to evaluate the answers provided,' Del Mar, who is also a general practitioner, said [...]";

well, then, why are we calling them a profession?  This doesn't sound like the fiduciary relationship that a doctor occupies.  A professional does not operate like a used care salesperson and the customer can't be expected to balance out the information asymmetry that is inevitable.

"Dr Brian Morton, chair of the Australian Medical Association’s council of general practice, said [...] 'I think many of the disparate groups that call themselves naturopaths, on the whole, are not in possession of scientifically based qualifications [...] there is also a conflict of interest for people who go to naturopaths and come out with handfuls of directly sold potions which the naturopaths profit from. But while doctors prescribe medicines, we don’t directly sell and dispense them [...]";

hear, hear.

002. for video of the arrest, see this link from The Daily Mail.