001. at YouTube, there's the AANMC account video "The Journey, Challenges and Charms of Changing Your Career to Naturopathic Medicine" (2018) [saved 2018-01-10], featuring ND MacMillan, who BTW says "fun" way too often and "love" far too often, and also says:
.
[tags: #AANMC #NDMacMillan #codedvitalism #fun&love #injections #BINM #freedom #opacity]
.
the speaker is Lucas MacMillan (ND BINM, RN) [2018 archived...and see] drlucasmac.com [...];
so there are some details. Now it is BINM that codes vitalism [without an ounce of vitalism or vitalistic on the site], supports homeopathy as essentially naturopathic and effective, states categorically that naturopathy's homeopathy, of their NPLEX Core Science, is obviously, science. Not a sound foundation, epistemically speaking, but that's par for the course in Naturopathyland.
"I keep training to increase my scope [...] the most recent training I've had is in advanced injections [...] into joint spaces, into the spine, into the neck, thoracic, the lumbar, all of that [...for] regeneration [...] there's many other things that I can do yet. I love that [...]";
oh, my. Seems to me there's little money in "natural" medicine, because here we have the very invasive / unnatural / artificial service of 'injections galore.' And lovin' it...
"I want to keep building [...] I'm going to keep expanding, I'm going to keep learning. Continuing education definitely going to carry me forward [...I have a] bachelor of science in nursing [...]";
ok, so here's where I recite the CT Nurse's Association recent pronouncement on ND education -- which seems rather appropriate since ND MacMillan is also a nurse [from p.109]: "naturopaths trained in this state, or any state, do not have sufficient education and training at this time to safely prescribe the medications they have requested. They do not have the scientific foundation, nor even the commitment to evidence-based therapy that must be the cornerstone of all practice, let alone practice that involves risk to life and limb." Let's throw in "province" as well. So, without a science-foundation or care for rigorous vetting, I cringe at the idea of a naturopath INJECTING, never mind prescribing. And that pronouncement was made by the "Connecticut State Medical Society, Connecticut Nurses Association, Connecticut Academy of Family Physicians, CTAPRNS, Connecticut Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Connecticut Dermatologic Society, Connecticut Society of Eye Physicians, Connecticut Coalition of Advanced Practice Nurses, Connecticut Urology Society, Connecticut ENT Society." Learn that, and learn why: that's a great place to begin a naturopath's continuing education. And of course that "science" of his nursing RN is quite not the science-is-anything of the ND he also possesses.
"there's rules that we have to live within [...]";
I find that statement very ironic for an area as deviant as naturopathy.
"the pubic in general is figuring out what naturopathic medical
doctors are [...] there was a disconnect between some of our training,
some of what we offer, and what the public knew [...]";
well, with such entities as AANMC falsely stating categorically "science" upon such nonsciences as naturopathy's homeopathy...yeah, quite a disconnect. I argue that the naturopathic system trains one to be a charlatan. E.g., offering homeopathy as science and legitimate, for starters. Here's AANMC stating "every licensed naturopathic doctor had to go through a rigorous four year science-based medical education at one of the 7 accredited naturopathic medical schools." That would include BINM, which has as I've pointed out, homeopathy at its core.
"[yet as regard his naturopathy education, he tells us about naturopathy's] incredible training and scope [...] incredible training
[...as compared to his nursing background] anatomy and physiology
[were...] to a greater depth [...] it was hard [...] the rigorous
education [...] an education that's fairly intense [...] I can tell you
it is intense. I'm very proud of this [...]";
with homeopathy as a bellwether of naturopathy's laxity, I don't see how we get to "incredible, greater, rigorous, intense" or something to be proud of. Now, charlatanism is perfectly acceptable in Naturopathyland, but it isn't in nursing ethics, BTW. It is mandated that such be REPORTED when known about, generally, within the nursing code.
"what defines naturopathic medicine? [...] naturopathic principles [...] it generally comes back to the naturopathic principles [...] I wanted to bring this up for two reasons: first, I love this. I think this is something to be proud of [...#2] healing power of nature [...] the second reason I wanted to bring this up is the healing power of nature. It's actually something I misunderstood completely right of the bat [...] I felt that is was treating people using only natural means, the complete exclusion of anything synthetic or any treatment that didn't fall in that natural category [...] this isn't necessarily true [...] this principle actually refers to the patient in front of us [...] that inherent ability as desire of the body to heal itself [...] as a practitioner, I am helping people to heal themselves [...] it's very empowering [...] in the end, they're healing themselves [...] so that the person can basically heal themselves [...] so she can be empowered to help heal herself [...]";
"what defines naturopathic medicine? [...] naturopathic principles [...] it generally comes back to the naturopathic principles [...] I wanted to bring this up for two reasons: first, I love this. I think this is something to be proud of [...#2] healing power of nature [...] the second reason I wanted to bring this up is the healing power of nature. It's actually something I misunderstood completely right of the bat [...] I felt that is was treating people using only natural means, the complete exclusion of anything synthetic or any treatment that didn't fall in that natural category [...] this isn't necessarily true [...] this principle actually refers to the patient in front of us [...] that inherent ability as desire of the body to heal itself [...] as a practitioner, I am helping people to heal themselves [...] it's very empowering [...] in the end, they're healing themselves [...] so that the person can basically heal themselves [...] so she can be empowered to help heal herself [...]";
ah, coded vitalism. Not empowering. Not something to be proud of, or love. When you can't be transparent. And isn't it interesting to hear: 'natural medicine doesn't have to be essentially natural.' Same old naturopathillogical.
"why would we chose this over other professions? [...] practice freedom [...] I have many options under my belt [...] I can completely redefine my approach [...] I can reinvent what I'm doing [...] [...] I love that freedom [...] possibilities [...] we have many more treatment tools [...] a broader arrangement of treatment options [...] it's an incredible freedom [...] a true freedom [...] because we have access to so many things [...] we can offer unique treatments to each patient [...comparing] one naturopathic doctor versus another, you can get a completely different experience [... ] vastly different assessments, and tests, and treatments [...] it can be all over the map [...] I think it's a beautiful thing [...] so many other things [...] we have access to so much [...] naturopathic doctors are in a unique position [...] naturopathic medicine is huge. There is so much to it [...] we have a massive scope [...] so many options that we can offer [...] instead of following a protocol [...] instead of following what would otherwise be a very limiting standard of practice [...] depending on who you see, those could completely change [...] it's valuable to be a little bit different [...] from what the common treatments offer [...] what the common professions offer [...]";
now, we generally know enough in healthcare by now to know BEST practices in SO MANY situations. But, this is an indication of naturopathy's 'science-cynicism', in my view. Its analysis-cynicism. And I don't think naturopathy is professional, though it calls itself a profession. So, yes: freedom because in Naturopathyland 'anything goes'. Another aspect of 'anything goes' is the obvious impossibility of comparison between naturopaths. As they regulate themselves, then how can they ever do anything wrong in terms of diagnosis and treatment? There's no baseline when there's SO MUCH FREEDOM, such nonranked DOINGS. Like homeopathy...fine for them. Though bogus and impossible it's too a "tool." Oh the deviance!
"what the training is what we do and how we can help people [...] a beautiful place [...] fun [...] you have a lot more time, it's almost summed up by that alone [...] much more thorough [...]";
well, I'd argue that not only is this an issue of QUANTITY, there are huge issues of epistemic quality, categorical epistemic quality. Yet of course, subtly is the insinuation that regular medicine is rushed and therein somehow tainted with negligence.
"the earning potential is incredible [...]";
I'm sure it is. Ka-ching...
No comments:
Post a Comment