Naturopath guilty in death

[thaiboxerken]

I disagree. Alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine are treatments that are not necessarily part of the standard medicial education, but have also been shown to have effects in many cases.

There certainly are things such as alternative, etc., or else I doubt there would be this big of a fuss about it in the scientific, medical, and skeptical communities. [/B]

Zap is simply expressing his, and many other's, opinion that it shouldn't be called alternative or naturopathic. It should be called quackery.

Those "alternative" solutions don't make it into real, evidence-based medicine because it is quackery. You keep saying that they have been shown to have effects in many cases, but do you have any scientific, clinical peer-reviewed studies to back that up?

 

[athon]

I actually agree with what T'ai Chi is trying to say. Yes it is true that Naturopathy can be dangerous, if not used by a competent and qualified Naturopath. Here in New Zealand, I believe, Naturopaths are trained know their limitations and when to refer onto a doctor. Also, I believe that Naturopathy is not seen as an 'alternative medicine' but a 'complimentry medicine', which is not there to 'replace' conventional medicines but to compliment it. It's unfortunate that such people, like the 'Naturopath' in the article posted above, put up such bad names for Naturopaths because natural medicines actually do have their benefits.

Does anyone here take aspirin?
Or use Manuka honey for a sore throat?


Missy.
(just putting in my 2 cents worth )

All well and good, but there is yet to be in any country a regulatory board equivalent to a medical association. So while there are probably good naturopaths who understand the limitations to the best of current knowledge, there can also be naturopaths who are giving compounds which could do harm when in conjunction with other forms of medication.

Secondly, there is no legislative requirement (in Australia at least) for a naturopath to ask what medication a client is on. Not so for a GP.

Thirdly, even if a naturopath is so well read they know everything there is to know about their profession, that knowledge bank is limited. It is a dangerous field because of two things

1) the dosages within a given amount of plant or herb is unknown. You could be getting a third dose, the right dose, or a triple dose, and there is no sure way of telling.

2) Effects of many plants or herbs are little studied. With conventional drugs, all avenues possible are tested for - contradindicative effects, effects on various conditions, metabolic byproducts etc.

So while naturopathy might hold many secrets, which should provide huge benefits, they should not be provided until those secrets are revealed through proper means.

Athon

 

[T'ai Chi]

..there is yet to be in any country a regulatory board equivalent to a medical association.

Have you done Google searches yet?

 

[reprise]

It's interesting to note the difference in the general health of populations which have access to only traditional medicine when compared to those which are largely reliant on Western medicine and to ask why the general health of those populations with limited access to the allopathic health care model is not of a comparable standard to that of the general population in Western societies.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Secondly, there is no legislative requirement (in Australia at least) for a naturopath to ask what medication a client is on. Not so for a GP.

Of course there isn't. Naturopathy, like many "alternative" medicines don't want teh regulation and legislation. I mean, if they actually had to do clinical studies for their claims and actually had to have science behind their claims.... they'd go bankrupt. Many of the herbs and other things they sell have no real effect at all. Unfortunately, some of the herbs do have adverse effects.

The naturopaths prey upon people that distrust "western" (evidence-based) medicine. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that these quacks don't want legislated.

 

[Zep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi I disagree. Alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine are treatments that are not necessarily part of the standard medicial education, but have also been shown to have effects in many cases.

Those that are "not necessarily part of the standard medical education" are not because they are quackery, not because of some bias in the medical profession. Procedures and drugs will be readily adopted if they work, and just as easily dropped if they are no longer effective or show no promise. The only reason various "alternative" medicines are not used are because they have failed the tests of efficacy. If they worked, the drug companies would be making millions from them. If they don't it's companies like Pan Pharmaceuticals in Australia who try to benefit from people's gullibility (look it up - not a pretty story).

There certainly are things such as alternative, etc., or else I doubt there would be this big of a fuss about it in the scientific, medical, and skeptical communities.

Rubbish. If they are effective and are tested and are controlled then they are NOT alternative anything, they are medicine. The "alternative" to "medicine" is "NOT medicine," pure and simple. There is no such thing as something being "a tiny bit medicine" or "mostly medicine" - the concept is quite silly.

The fuss, as you call it, is about practioners of snake-oil who somehow seem to think that their brand of coloured water made from brewed lawn clippings in a rusty 44-gallon pesticide drum is the magic cure for all known ills, then get upset when told it is more likely to be poisonous than helpful.

 

[EdipisReks]

right on, Zep.

 

[athon]

Have you done Google searches yet? [/B]

Meaning?

You have a habit, Tai Chi, of picking out a small point to argue, ignoring the crux of the statement. If I was to further define what I mean by a lack of MA, then going on my understanding of European, American, Chinese (believe it or not) and Australian health legislation (others I haven't explored, granted, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong in this case) there are no government run bodies that oversee and regulate naturopathy.

Is all of this a little overwhelming for you or something?

Athon

 

[reprise]

As athon has already pointed out, there are no legal restrictions on who can call themselves a "naturopath" in Australia and no legal standards of certification required of those using the title.

Victoria does have a Chinese Medicine Registration Board which does regulate those using or dispensing traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture in particular, it regulates who is legally allowed to use certain titles related to the practise of Chinese herbal medicine.

 

[athon]

As athon has already pointed out, there are no legal restrictions on who can call themselves a "naturopath" in Australia and no legal standards of certification required of those using the title.

Victoria does have a Chinese Medicine Registration Board which does regulate those using or dispensing traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture in particular, it regulates who is legally allowed to use certain titles related to the practise of Chinese herbal medicine.

Same in several other countries. But to my knowledge, none of them are government implemented or associated with a central medical association. So there is no legislature controlling what constitutes an effective medication and what doesn't, what 'naturopath' medications affects what 'conventional' medications, etc. And it's this which I am opposed to.

I don't disagree with research. I do disagree with implenting unproven or untested drugs in society.

Athon

 

[reprise]

Same in several other countries. But to my knowledge, none of them are government implemented or associated with a central medical association. So there is no legislature controlling what constitutes an effective medication and what doesn't, what 'naturopath' medications affects what 'conventional' medications, etc. And it's this which I am opposed to.

I don't disagree with research. I do disagree with implenting unproven or untested drugs in society.

Athon

The Victorian board is a government body, and the Act (and amendments to other Acts which have been changed as a consequence of the Act's passage) does restrict the legal use of certain herbs used in Chinese herbal medicine to registered practitioners - those herbs have been scheduled and cannot be prescribed or dispensed by unregistered practitioners (who must have met the standards of training outlined in the Act in order to qualify for registration).

This is somewhat in line with the TGA restricting who can prescribe substances such as L-tryptophan and selenium. The legal requirements are less about the efficacy of the substances than they are about acknowledging that they are potentially unsafe in the hands of unqualified practitioners.

 

[Zep]

So much for accreditation...

http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/qakatak/a-poxhouse.htm
Bureaucratic controls on ‘alternative’ therapies I recently registered two business names for Molly Pointer. One is the Pointer Naturopath Clinic, and the other is the Nisiesha Academy of Eastern and Natural Medicine (Nisiesha is Japanese for "false doctor"). Molly is my pet dog, and she is a Pointer, so she can now sell you a Diploma of Naturopathy from her own academy, and it is just as valid as any other. Theoretically, I could get my friends to claim money from health funds on the strength of an invoice with the Pointer Naturopath Clinic letterhead on it.

So what stops people defrauding the insurance companies this way? Accreditation. The insurance companies look at the pedigree of the practitioner, and have to be satisfied that the qualification did not come from a bogus institute such as Nisiesha. The simplest way to do that is to be sure the practitioner is a member of one of the Big Three professional bodies.

To be a member of one of those bodies, you have to produce a certificate from a training facility that has a government accredited course. I would have a hard time getting my dog’s academy past that one, and so would any other organisation who wasn’t fair dinkum, right?

Wrong! State governments are the authorities that give accreditation to the natural health colleges, and they have two areas that they look at. One is the number of fluorescent tubes, whiteboards, air conditioners, business plan etc. The other is the comprehensive range of the curriculum.

Nisiesha Academy would have to submit its curriculum to an ITAB (Industry Training Advisory Board) which is set up by the Department of Employment, Training and Further Education. The 19 people on the board in South Australian are representatives of the teaching profession, the trade unions, Public Service and so on.

There are no scientists on the board, they don’t question efficacy, and no effort is made to validate the medical claims of the various subjects being taught. It would be a lot of trouble, but not impossible, to get my dog’s Nisiesha Academy through the whole process, including the ITAB, without knowing anything at all about health. So where does the responsibility for the five people who couldn’t diagnose my chicken pox fall? At the feet of the state Ministers for Education. Once the Nisiesha Academy gets state government accreditation, the federal government automatically gives Austudy and Abstudy to its students. The Big Three natural health professional bodies would accept your goldfish as a member, and the major health funds would issue it with a provider number. You then just keep mailing bogus bills to them, and they keep sending money to your goldfish.