here, some quick musings on a recent article --
Redmond, R., Steel, A., Wardle, J., & Adams, J. (2022).
Naturopathic knowledge and approaches to managing endometriosis:
A cross-sectional survey of naturopaths with experience in endometriosis care.
Journal of Complementary & Integrative Medicine, 10.1515/jcim-2022-0175.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2022-0175
-- that mentions naturopathic philosophy many times but does not specify the central tenet within that philosophy…for some strange reason, wink-wink:
001. we're told such things as:
"adherence to the philosophical frameworks of the profession [...] the naturopathic approach to care is
underpinned by a philosophical framework [...] naturopathic philosophical frameworks [...] philosophical principles [...] a focal point in naturopathic philosophy and principles [...] philosophical underpinnings [...] philosophical frameworks [...] to effectively capture naturopathic understanding and conceptual philosophical approaches [...] naturopathic philosophy";
so, lots of 'love of wisdom' aka philosophy. And of course, the wise is good. But NO WHERE in the article is the central philosophical tenet of naturopathy stated: the scientific fact that a vital force runs the body, is responsible for health and disease, and is naturopath manipulable. So, obviously that philosophy is hidden. The lead naturopath author is Redmond (ND{AU} ECNH). Her bio page at LinkedIn states “Endeavour College of Natural Health, Bachelor of Health Science, Naturopathic
Medicine/ Naturopathy Jan 2010 - Nov 2014.” And that
she’s working on a PhD research doctorate in public health.
002. a little research, fake philosophy, a little public health ethics:
naturopathy's central vitalism [an erroneous 'science subset vitalism' claim] is quite readily available at ECNH, the lead author's alma mater, as "a vital force that flows through all living things." This is within "science" degree. So, obviously, there's a resulting opacity to the paper. With vitalism science-ejected, it is quite convenient, one could postulate, to disguise it and therefore the bury the issue of a philosophy based on something that is WRONG. Something that is wrong can never be WISE. Therein, fake philosophy.
let's roll in some public health ethics, too. The New South Wales government's Health Code of Ethics speaks of core values that include integrity and openness, particularly open communication and communicating clearly and with integrity. Integrity, in case it needs clarification, is generally the attribute of completeness, honesty, and goodness. And it is always interesting, for an area like naturopathy -- which claims wholism or holism, as in inclusiveness, often a haughty better-than-ness, after all the paper states "holism [...] a focal point in naturopathic philosophy and principles. This holistic approach [...and] the patient-centered framework delivered by naturopaths [...which includes] patient empowerment" -- how selective their narratives are.
