Position Papers: Naturopathy

What is a Traditional Naturopath?

Although the term “Naturopathy” originated in the late 19th century, the art can be traced back through Germany into Greece, to Hippocrates himself, and even beyond. There have always been people who understood that healing occurs naturally in the human body, if it is given what it truly needs — proper diet, pure water, fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and rest. For these people, the emphasis has not been on finding a disease and killing it, but rather on helping the body establish its own state of good health. Today, these people are known as Traditional Naturopaths. Traditional Naturopaths recognize that allopathic health care is, at times, necessary. They also know that many people can maintain good health through the use of naturopathy.

What a Traditional Naturopath Does NOT Do

A Traditional naturopath avoids procedures common to medical care. Among them are: diagnosing disease, treating disease, prescribing drugs and pharmaceuticals, and performing invasive procedures. In determining the root cause of a client's problems, Traditional Naturopaths do not diagnose or treat disease, but instead focus on health and education. They teach clients how to create an internal and an external environment that is conducive to good health, enabling the clients to make their own choices. Traditional naturopathy is not a medical practice. Major and minor surgery, prescribing drugs and pharmaceuticals, giving injections and drawing blood should be limited to medical doctors only and not performed within the scope of naturopathy.

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and Their Form of Alternative Health Care

The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) presents itself and its members as the only group of qualified naturopaths. On examination, it is clear that members of the AANP, who are pushing for regulation of the naturopathic profession, are not practicing true naturopathy. The AANP seeks to have a law enacted that would authorize individuals to:

perform minor surgery;
practice obstetrics including episiotomies;
prescribe certain drugs including some synthetic antibiotics;
use many allopathic diagnostic procedures including X-rays, electrocardiograms, ultrasound, and clinical laboratory tests.

Since the AANP’s goal is for its members to function as primary care “physicians,” and since their training includes many hours of allopathic technique, it is clear that they plan to cross into areas currently reserved for medical doctors. However, the training available in their schools cannot match the training required of a medical doctor, especially considering the years of hospital internship and residency.

If a naturopathy licensing bill is signed into law:

in most states, only a small handful of individuals would be eligible to seek licensure, although there may be many times that number of true naturopaths who are currently conducting legal health practices;
all Traditional Naturopaths would be forced to seek other employment;
the state would be required to fund a regulatory board to oversee the actions of a small number of “naturopathic physicians;”
“naturopathic physicians,” who would have no standing with your state’s hospitals, would, necessarily, refer critically ill patients to allopathic physicians, thus potentially delaying treatment to the detriment of their patients.

At least two Western states, Nebraska and Colorado, have rejected the idea of naturopathic regulation. In both cases, their conclusions were that the practice of unregulated naturopathy posed no danger to the public. Both states saw danger in elevating the naturopath to the status of physician. In those states, all naturopaths may conduct a traditional practice, teaching people how to stay healthy — the best form of prevention.

The results of naturopathic regulation.

Naturopathic regulation would have several broad effects. It would:

elevate in stature practitioners whose training is substandard, thus exposing the public to danger which would not be present should the profession remain unregulated;
exclude a majority of practitioners, those who currently work within the law in the traditional way, as educators, not medical doctors;
cause the state to incur a huge expense to regulate a profession consisting of a small handful of practitioners.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote against a naturopathy bill.

Facts about Licensure

Licensure ensures quality. Doesn’t it?

Most people view licensure positively. After all, we are told that it is only through licensing that we can be assured that consumers will receive high quality health care.

However, this does not necessarily follow. It is well known that many people fall victim every year to iatrogenic, that is, physician-caused illness. While this is sometimes a result of negligence, it may simply be due to factors that no physician, no matter how careful and highly skilled, could predict. Physicians have been licensed by their state governments, yet still there are patients who are harmed. Has licensure been able to prevent this?

What would a licensure law mean for naturopaths?

If you are a traditional naturopath, it could mean the end of your career. Historically, the reason (although not the rationale) for instituting licensure has been to keep the control of a given profession, and the profits derived from it, in the hands of a select few inpiduals. This will certainly be the result if bills that are pending in a number of states and supported by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) are signed into law. These laws would:

Require that all naturopaths graduate from one of only three schools — either Bastyr University, National College, or Southwest College.
Require that all naturopaths pass the NPLEX, an exam that is not available to people who have received their education from institutions other than those few the law will approve.
Protect a tiny minority of “naturopathic physicians,” those who are members of the AANP, while making it illegal for thousands of Traditional Naturopaths to practice. Bar anyone who is not a licensed naturopathic physician from recommending the use of foods, vitamins, and herbs as a means of healing, if this is part of a health-related practice.
Make thousands of Traditional Naturopaths eligible for a jail sentence, not for a license.

What about Grandfathering Practitioners?

It has been suggested that some of the current bills should be amended to allow grandfathering-in for those already engaged in the practice of naturopathy. On the surface, this would seem to be a viable alternative. After all, it would put no one out of business. Right? Let’s take a look. If these bills are signed into law with an amendment to allow grandfathering, the results would be that:

Some, but not all, of the traditional naturopaths continue practicing. In most cases, practitioners who would be grandfathered-in must have completed a specified number of years practicing as a naturopath prior to the passage of the law. Sometimes there are percentages of income requirements as well. Naturopath’s who haven’t met these requirements will never be grandfathered.
Traditional Naturopathy, as a profession, would be dead. No one could become a naturopath without traveling the allopathic-educational path, and the form of “naturopathy” taught at the approved schools is a strange mixture of allopathic and natural healing techniques.
Any new law can easily be amended in the future to “upgrade” the profession and remove the few remaining Traditional Naturopaths from practice.

In short, “grandfathering” may sound good, but it is only a trap. If lucky, the grandfathers might survive... but the grandchildren will never be born.

How Can Traditional Naturopaths Protect Themselves?

First, help to kill any bill to license naturopathic physicians BEFORE it is signed into law, preferably while in committee. That would keep true naturopathy in the public domain.

Second, do not support ANY bill that would institute licensure. Even if true naturopaths write and submit their own bill, the door will be opened for many undesirable possibilities. With any bill there is the danger of:

Amendment. A bill that is signed into law is often vastly different from the bill that was originally introduced. By the time it has gone through committees and both houses of the legislature, it may not even resemble its former self.
Monopoly. Licensure laws define a scope of practice and specify the requirements that must be met for licensure. Any person whose credentials and/or methods do not fit the letter of the law will be forced out of practice or made into a criminal. The profession will fall into the hands of a few, and they may not include yours.
Government Control. Passage of a naturopathic law would create the need for a regulatory agency whose membership would be appointed, probably by the governor or other state official. There is no guarantee that this agency would include any traditional naturopaths.
The Allopathic Model. While health care alternatives are becoming more accepted, in the United States most people see the allopathic model as the highest and best approach to health care. Few people understand the theories and philosophy that uphold traditional naturopathy. Many will assume that the naturopaths whose education and methods for practice most closely resemble those of allopathic physicians will be the most qualified. These practitioners are NOT the true naturopaths.

Third, continue to practice as a traditional naturopath, neither diagnosing illness nor prescribing medications, but instead teaching your clients how to create good health in their own bodies. In this way, you are practicing education, not medication. You are helping people become healthy and stay healthy. And you are striking a blow for freedom of choice in health care.

Fourth, CNH constantly monitors states for new legislation on naturopathy. If a bill is introduced in your state, we can provide advice on how to help you protect true naturopathy.

What’s Wrong with the AANP?

In spite of their rhetoric and their efforts to present themselves just like allopathic doctors, only better, there are many problems associated with the AANP and its brand of naturopathic medicine. For example:

The AANP claims to promote freedom of choice in health care, but when it comes to naturopathy, the only freedom it would allow is the freedom to choose its own naturopathic “physicians.”
The goal of the AANP is for its doctors to function as primary care naturopathic “physicians” include practicing minor surgery, using X-rays, and prescribing legend drugs, all currently reserved for allopathic physicians. However, the training in these modalities which is available at AANP schools cannot match the training required for allopaths, especially if you consider the years of internship and residency.
The AANP sanctions the use of childhood vaccinations.
The AANP approves of naturopathic “physicians” using allopathic-type antibiotics in certain situations.
According to the AANP definition of naturopathic medicine, naturopathic practice should include prescribing “medicines of mineral, animal, and botanical origin.” It should also include performing “minor surgery.” In at least one state, medicines that a naturopath may prescribe include erythromycin, Penicillins, Streptomycins, and Tetracyclines. The AANP considers any surgery that doesn’t enter a body cavity to be minor surgery. A recent president of the AANP stated that minor surgery may include such procedures as skin biopsies, hemorrhoid operations, and vasectomies.

In a report to the Nebraska senate, the Nebraska Director of Health said, “There has been no compelling evidence that the credentialing of naturopathic physicians is necessary in order to protect public health, or that it could be done without harming public health.”

Today, if a naturopathic “physician” practices according to the goals of the AANP, he or she can rightfully be accused of practicing medicine without a license. Traditional naturopaths must fight to keep it that way.

The thousands of true naturopaths who practice in the United States would not benefit from having a naturopathic licensure law. The allopathic primary health care system would not benefit from having a naturopathic licensure law. The public would not benefit from having a naturopathic licensure law. No one would benefit — except for the small number of AANP naturopaths and their own small special interest group. Together, they are pushing for naturopathic licensure simply to establish a highly profitable monopoly.

Traditional Naturopathy