Although I have never been to a naturopathic doctor, I don't think I would hesitate to use one as long as they were a graduate of an accredited naturopathic university. I believe there are only about five or six of them, one of the best known being Baystr University in WA. The graduate program in Naturopathic Medicine at Bastyr requires a 4 year degree and looks very much like a traditional medical degree (to me at least), but includes additional coursework in natural healing. It certainly doesn't look like an easy program to complete. Here is a link to the course requirements:Bastyr U Naturopathic Medicine. I certainly wouldn't classify someone with little or no formal training and holding a naturopathic doctor's certificate from Washington, DC to be in the same league as a graduate from Bastyr or a similar program. Unfortunately, this type of situation only fuels the controversy of traditional vs alternative medicine by helping those opposed to nontraditional medicine to discredit legitimate alternative medical practitioners along with the quacks.
I would not personally choose naturopathic medicine, however, it is a legitimate profession. An wonderful example of a quality accredited school is Bastyr. In Washington, Naturopathic medicnine is licensed and regulated like medicine or chiropractic. Bastyr is a quality example of this mode of treatment. Too bad the bizarre models become the example.
I believe there are about 13 states that license naturopathic doctors. In those states, Naturopths are physicians because of their formal training in traditional medicine. They are licensed to perform minor surgery, diagnostic procedures, and to perscribe drugs. As far as I know, Naturopaths in these states use noninvasive treatments but don't claim to "cure" serious diseases such as heart problems and cancer by excluding other medical treatment, but readily cooperate with and refer their patients to specialists and surgeons in traditional medicine. I think Naturopaths offer a very valuable service as primary and family physicians and for patients that wish to use nontraditional medicine in conjunction with traditional treatment. Years ago, DO's (Doctors of Osteopathy) were labeled as quacks by the AMA. The AMA went after and was able to reduce the growing number of Osteopathic hospitals in the US. Although the number of Osteopathic hospitals today is much lower, many still exist. An example is Touro University's College of Osteopathic Medicine in CA. Today, DOs are generally considered the equivalent of MDs and it's not unusual to find them working side by side in the same hospitals. Naturopaths do not compete against nor claim to have the same status as MDs or DOs since they do not focus on nor receive training to perform major surgery and other specialized procedures. That said, the sad fact is that outside of the licensing states, almost anyone can complete a correspondence course and claim to be a Naturopathic Doctor.
Quackwatch is very critical of Naturopathy. These quotes are especially telling of thier viewpoint: The difference between more and less educated naturopaths is . . . . like comparing more and less educated witch doctors. It could actually be argued that less schooled naturopaths are safer because they may have a smaller bag of tricks and, because they don't consider themselves "primary health physicians" are more apt to refer patients to M.D.'s for additional care [15]. Although some aspects of naturopathic education have improved in recent years, I believe this conclusion is still valid. I believe that the average naturopath is a muddlehead who combines commonsense health and nutrition measures and rational use of a few herbs with a huge variety of unscientific practices and anti-medical double-talk. ___________________________________________________ I also looked to find Quackwatches viewpoints on Osteopathy and quickly found these quotes: Osteopathic physicians (DOs) are the legal equivalents and, in most cases, are the professional equivalents of medical doctors. Although most DOs offer competent care, the percentage involved in dubious practices appears to be higher than that of medical doctors. For this reason, before deciding whether to use the services of a DO it is useful to understand osteopathy's history and the practical significance of its philosophy. I believe that the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy. If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (a) has undergone residency training at a medical hospital; (b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy or that manipulation offers general health benefits; (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain; and (d) does not practice cranial therapy. ___________________________________________________ Not only is Quackwatch critical of these two disciplines, it also attacks Chiropractic, Acupuncture, Nutritionists, and every treatment available outside of mainstream medicine. This is not to say there are not quacks in these fields, and I think consumers should be educated and skeptical, but to take such an extreme one-sided viewpoint is a bit too much. Quackwatch also exaggerates the facts involved with nontraditional treatment - not all DOs practice cranial therapy, not all DCs prescribe herbs, and not all Naturopaths practice homeopathy. I agree that that the information on Quackwatch is helpful and should be available, but I wouldn't rely on them exclusively.
Quackwatch is *incredibly* biased and condemns many things that have been proven in high-quality studies. They also have a habit of selectively reporting studies and information that supports the position they want to take, conveniently ignoring information that contradicts their viewpoint. They're great as a devil's advocate viewpoint, but shouldn't be given much credibility. As for naturopathy, IMHO it's a very sensible, respected approach to healing, *provided* that the practitioner is a graduate of one of abour 4 or 5 properly accredited schools. Unfortunately, the Clayton School of Natural Health, Westbrook University, and a handful of others are completely bogus programs that have no academic or medical/scientific rigor, and yet these schools also have huge bankrolls to fund attempts to prevent states from properly licensing naturopathy. So... unless you're in a licensure state, you have to be very, very careful in selecting a naturopathic physician, and ask specifically where the person got his/her education.
Interesting that this story is about an ordinance in Washington, DC, and there is a St. Regis faculty member, Professor Dr. Christopher R. Campbell, who is a Registered Naturopath in DC. Of course, if that doesn't work out for him, he can always fall back on his Ph.D. in financial management. And then there's St. Regis faculty member Professor Dr. William A. Harrison, who also has a Ph.D. in Naturopathic Science. But Harrison is even better situated if the naturopathy thing falls through since he has five other doctorates.
