Talk:Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine

Starting the article

Maybe this was an error on my part, but I created this article a few minutes ago, and it seems to have been deleted immediately. There was no communication with me on my talk page, so here I am creating it agsain. Lamaybe (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You originally created the article at Doctor of Naturopathy and then created it a second time at Naturopathic doctor minutes later. I just redirected Doctor of Naturopathy here. However, once the AfD is over, this article should be moved to its proper name, "Doctor of Naturopathy". --Scott Alter 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think the source article belongs at "Doctor of Naturopathy", I have no objection to that. I want to note, though, that the degree is referred to as "Doctor of Naturopathy" and "Naturopathic Doctor", just as the MD degree is referred to as "Medical Doctor" or "Doctor of Medicine." Lamaybe (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, isn't "Doctor of Naturopathy" the degree the diploma mills sell? meaning that the degree itself really has no merit, essentially non-existent. And "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" the degree of 4-5 years post bach almost identical to allopathic and osteopathic schools? Accredited by the US DoE? The title of the article should be "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" or "Naturopathic Doctor", and definitely not "Doctor of Naturopathy" --ThujaSol (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just tagged this page with {{db-histmerge|Doctor of Naturopathy}} so that the original revision created by Lamaybe would be in the version history. I also tagged Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine with {{db-move|Naturopathic doctor}} so that this page can be moved from Naturopathic doctor to Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. --Scott Alter 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

An academic degree in some jurisdictions?

Hi, Shoemaker; I appreciate your thoughtful edits, but I think one of them resulted in a confusing sentence. The lead opens that the ND "is, in some jurisdictions, an academic degree granted by a naturopathic medical school." I think it makes more sense to say that it the ND is "an academic degree granted by a naturopathic medical school." The rest of the lead clearly explains how licensure differs between jurisdictions. I think this is a pretty clear distinction, so I'll just make the change. Lamaybe (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My major worry is that ND isn't protected outside of a few states. As I said, it's absolutely necessary this is clear, or we end up misleading people, and giving credit to the uncredited. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable worry. It seems pretty clearly stated in the third sentence of the lead, would you agree? Lamaybe (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So, to get this straight. Because one editor is "worried" about some lack of clarification on a topic, the article gets nominated for AfD? Or was this just a minor edit that needed to be made in the intro? --ThujaSol (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: using the ND title in unregulated jurisdications

This is a common misunderstanding. The problem in unregulated jurisdictions is not that anyone can call themself a "naturopathic doctor" - the problem is that no-one can! Indeed in most jurisdictions, calling yourself any kind of "doctor" is going to get you in a heap of trouble if you are purporting to identify and treat the health problems of others. My understanding is that this is because most provinces and states protect the use of the title "doctor" itself. This is why you don't see ads for "Homeopathic Doctors" or "Witch Doctors" or "Holistic Doctors" or any other kind of invented pseudo "Doctor" in most jurisdictions.

The real problem is that in these unregulated jurisdictions, self trained/correspondence school graduates and graduates of a naturopathic medical school must both resort to calling them selves "naturopath" or "naturopathic practitioner" etc. I am not aware of any unregulated jurisdiction where either type of practitioner could legally use the title "Naturopathic Doctor" however. 64.235.217.157 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that if you have received a doctorate, you can call yourself a doctor, and both the naturopathic medical schools and the corrospondance schools offer a doctoral degree. In unregulated jurisdictions, the legislation doesn't regulate announcing that you are a doctor, it regulates diagnosing and treating patients, but in regulated areas, the title ND is protected. Unless there's a reference indicating that there are jurisdictions in which someone can't themselves an ND if they have an ND degree, I propose removing this statement in the article. Lamaybe (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the title "Doctor/Dr."

Actually, your ability to use the title of “Dr.” doesn’t really depend on holding a “doctorate”. Medical doctors (allopathic) who obtain a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery degree which is equivalent to the US-MD degree are allowed to use the title of “Dr.”. Same goes for overseas trained vets (here is an example of a vet graduate from Australia who has a Bachelor of Vet Medicine/Surgery and is allowed to use “Dr.” by the state Vet board in the US).

• Dr. Heath Stump, BVMS

Similarly there are some situations in which even if you hold a “doctorate” you are not allowed to use the title of “Dr.”, for example some nurses who obtain a DNP degree are not allowed in some jurisdictions to walk around introducing themselves to patients in a hospital as “Doctor”.

So, you can see that usage of the title at least in most health related fields is actually regulated by your profession and your license and not by the actual degree you hold.Jwri7474 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from your example above that people who have received degrees outside North America that are equivalent to a medical doctorate in North America can use the title "doctor" in North America. And also that in some jurisdictions a nurse with a DNP can't use the title "doctor" in a hospital setting. But I still think that someone with a doctorate in anything can refer to themselves as a doctor, as long as it doesn't imply the ability to legally diagnose and treat a patient. So, a DNP working out of his private office could introduce himself as "Dr. Smith" just as a physicist with a PhD can introduce herself as "Dr. Smith", and hand out business cards that say "Dr. Smith" and advertise her services as "Dr. Smith's Physics Tutoring". In the same sense, someone with a doctorate in naturopathic medicine--whether that degree was granted by a naturopathic medical school or a naturopathic correspondence school--can advertise their services as "Dr. Smith's Complementary Medicine Clinic". However, in states that don't license naturopathic docs as primary health care providers (PHPs), that's all that any naturopath can do, whether she is a graduate of a naturopathic medical school or a naturopathic correspondence course. In states that license NDs as PHPs, though, an ND who graduated from a naturopathic medical school can diagnose and treat, call themselves naturoapthic doctors, and practice and publicize themselves as PHPs. In those states, someone with a doctorate in naturopathy from a correspondence school cannot diagnose or treat, cannot call themselves naturopathic doctors, and can practice and publicize themselves only as complementary health care providers. Lamaybe (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NDs as PCPs

In Oregon, graduates of naturopathic medical schools are primary care physicians; Oregon law states so clearly, right here: http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=1648 Although there are jurisdictions in which naturopathic physicians are not licensed, just the fact that there are states in which they are licensed primary care physicians is what distinguishes the degree; only graduates of the North American naturopathic medical schools are eligible to become primary care physicians in Oregon and other states and provinces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamaybe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is only 1 US state (Oregon) which has been one of.. if not the biggest supporter of Naturopathic Medicine practice. This one reference cannot be used to infer that this title is allowed in every region. Only a small few of the 15 states that even regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine in the United States allow this term "physician" to be used. These few US states that even allow this say that if an ND is to use the term "physician" it must be preceded by the term "naturopathic" that defines your scope of practice to the practice of naturopathic medicine/naturopathy.

Ex.

• You can (in a few of the 15 US states) say, "I am a naturopathic physician"
• You cannot (in any state) say, "I am a physician" -> (illegal)

If a naturopath was to set up shop in town and the only thing it said on the door was, "Dr. John Smith. Physician" without stating you were a naturopath doctor or stating that you practiced naturopathic medicine.. then you would be liabile... could be fined and/or loose your license. Simple as that. There are laws that state what you can and cannot advertise yourself as.

The state of Alaska (which is one of the 15 states that regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine) prohibits the use of the title "Physician" altogether by naturopathic doctors not only when used alone, but even if used in conjunction with the word "naturopathic". [1]

Canadian Province of British Columbia bylaws also states: "(3) A naturopathic physician must not use the titles "doctor" or "physician" in such a way as to suggest an occupation relating to the treatment of human ailments, other than as permitted under this regulation."[2]

So, again... the use of the title "physician" is only used in a few of the 15 states that even regulate the profession in the US and when it is allowed, it must be used in a specific way so as not to mislead the public that they practice mainstream (orthodox) medicine. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To which I would add...In the seven states that license 'Naturopathic Physicians', an MD

• can say, "I am a physician"
• cannot (in any state) say, "I am a naturopathic physician" -> (illegal)

As for the 'PCP' nonsense, it is not a legal term, no matter what you take the second 'P' to stand for. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that regulates the use of the term 'primary care practitioner'. It is a fact that this is how the CNME and the accredited colleges describe the scope of naturopathic practice however, and there is no law against it, because, once again 'primary care' is not a legal term to the best of my knowledge. Naturstud (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I agree with that. I'm just pointing out that the last "P" in PCP cannot mean "physician" by NDs anywhere except in only a few states. And when the term is used.. it must be preceded by the word "Naturopathic". Jwri7474 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I bet we can all consent to this: getting a degree from a CNME accredited school gives one the legal opportunity to diagnose and treat patients in the role of primary care provider in 15 states, 4 provinces, etc. That is a crucial thing that distinguishes the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" (title of the article) from the degrees offered by the correspondence schools. In fact, I think it is crucial enough that it should be pointed out clearly in the lead of the article. The fact that there are other degrees with similar sounding names that do not grant the opportunity to legally diagnose and treat patients anywhere is also very important, and should be mentioned. Consensus? Objections? Lamaybe (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine vs. Doctor of Naturopathy

As far as I can tell, the CNME accredited naturopathic medical schools grant the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine", for example: http://www.ncnm.edu/admissions-home/naturopathic-program.php http://www.bridgeport.edu/pages/3240.asp http://bastyr.edu/academic/profiles/ http://www.scnm.edu/index.php while the correspondence schools offer other degrees, for example "Doctor of Naturopathy": http://www.canyoncollege.edu/sch~naturopathy.htm or (@ Clayton College, the most prominant correspondence school), an "ND" degree in "traditional naturopathy": http://www.ccnh.edu/healthy/index2.asp?adclfr=GGspecific Clayton College also offers a degree called "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine", but this degree is a only available to licensed MDs, and an MD who gets this degree from Clayton is still not able to call herself a Naturopathic doctor in the 15 states and 4 provinces that have laws about who can use the title. So, since this article is about the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine", I think it makes sense to A. replace the references to NDs as primary health care physicians, B. replace references to the degree as a medical degree, and C. segment, remove, or refer to another article the info about PhDs in Naturopathy, etc. I'd love to hear what all you other editors think about this issue, thanks for the good work everybody! Lamaybe (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors. It's been a few days, so I made those changes referred to above. Although I wrote up sound information, I feel like the lead now reads a little sloppy, and like the page itself looks kinda sloppy. I think the lead could use a little copy-editing, and the page would look better with a picture of a naturopathic doc in there. Any volunteers" ;) Lamaybe (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appologize for reverting your edit without checking here first. Here is why i did it. The problem is that the "Doctor of Naturopathy vs Doctor of Naturopathic medicine" confusion exists in two realms. Firstly, there is incosistency in the name of the degrees/diplomas issued by schools (accredited or not). But there is also inconsistency in the title used in regulated jurisdictions. The Colorado sunrise report (p16) reveals that some states have legaly protected the title 'Naturopath' to describe graduates of accredited schools, while other states use the title 'Naturopathic Doctor', 'Naturopathic physician', or 'Doctor of Naturopathic medicine'. All of which makes for a very confusing term, something that the article should help sort out for people.

The fact that some non-acredited schools offer a "Naturopathic Doctor" or "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" to MDs, DCs etc is an interesting wrinkle, but probably not a notable one since these practioners are not permited to use the title. I think the safest course is to have the article note that the degree/diploma "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" can come from an acredited 4 year program whoose grads may legally practice using the title in regulated jurisdictions, or it can come from a non acredited program whose graduates may not use the title in regulated jurisdictions.

To simplify matters, I think the lead needs to make it clear that "Naturopathic Doctor" as an academic degree/diploma may be granted by an acredited 4 year school or a correspondance school - period. Introducing information about the set-up at one college in particular (Clayton College) adds to the confusion. It could also be argued to be a non-notable, non-verifiable fringe detail. How many "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine graduates" has Clayton college produced? Why havn't we heard about them anywhere else? Did this course offering even exist 2 years ago?? If the Clayton program were truly notable, this information should be easy to find elsewhere on the web for verification - but it isn't. "www.claytoncollege.com" is a comercial website after all. It could be argued that mentioning just one of the non-acredited for-profit correspondence schools but not the others is a form of advertising. For example, the Quebec College of Naturopthy is a non-acredited school that also offers an ND "Naturopathic Doctor (ND)" degree. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I cited references above showing that the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (the title of this article) is distinct from the Doctor of Naturopathy, and changed the article to reflect that. The degree "Doctor of Naturopathic medicine", when granted by one of the accredited naturopathic medical schools, is the only degree that allows someone to be licensed as a naturopathic primary health care provider in the states and provinces which regulate the use of the title. The correspondence schools, except for the one wrinkle, don't offer the "Doctor of Naturopathic medicine",but a "Doctor of Naturopathy", which is not the title of this article. My edit, which got reverted, mentioned the distinction, but focused on the degree which is the title of the article. The paragraph above this one says that the intro should mention that "Naturopathic Doctor" can be granted by a naturopathic medical school or a naturopathic correspondence school,but that's actually not the case. The naturopathic medical schools offer the "Doctor of NAturopathic Medicine", which is, again, the title of the article. The article is about the degree, which can grant one the use of the title of the same name, or of use of various other titles, as the sunrise report mentioned above makes clear. I'd be happy to change the article back to reflect that,and I'd be even happier if someone else did it. I look forward to seeing some responses here on the talk page. Lamaybe (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the suggested changes. Is there anything else that needs attention? -- travisthurston+ 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now written it infers that anyone who graduates from a US ND program is a primary care provider in all of the 15 states which regulate the profession. This is not the case. There are 15 states that "regulate" the profession and allow NDs to become registered to practice naturopathy/naturopathic medicine. That is all it that it means. Even a smaller number of states or provinces (4-5 maybe) allow them to use the title of PCP. Also, what do you even mean by the term PCP (Primary care provider/primary care physician)? The term PCP can either refer to an MD/DO who practices medicine, or it can be used to refer to "any" type of provider of health care in the community. The state of Alaska (which is one of the 15 states that regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine) prohibits the use of the title "Physician" by naturopathic doctors. [3] (see my above post under the section "NDs as PCPs") Jwri7474 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri, I understand you to mean that in one or more of the 15 states in which naturopathic medicine is licensed, graduates of CNME accredited schools are not eligible to be primary care providers. My understanding is that in all 15 states & 4 provinces in which NDs are licensed, they are licensed to diagnose and treat patients in the role of primary care providers. If you can show me a reference that indicates otherwise, I'll gladly remove my request that the lead refer to the degree as one that grants its' holder the ability to be licensed as a primary care provider. Lamaybe (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. However, people often confuse the two terms "primary care provider" and "primary care physician" both of which are often shortened to "PCP". The first means any health care employee that works directly with patients in a community setting, the second refers to medical doctor who is usually trained in Family Medicine or Internal Medicine. Yes, a doctor of naturopathy can work in 15 states as a primary care provider just as any other health care worker (nurse practitioners, dietitians, physical therapists, etc are all often refereed to as primary care providers in community settings). Primary care provider, yes.. and in a small handful of the 15 states where naturopathic medicine is regulated they are even allowed to use the term naturopathic physician. However, this does not mean they are a "primary care physician" which is something different entirely. To state such would mean that you are advertising yourself as "practicing medicine" and this is illegal unless you hold a medical license from a state or provencial board of medicine. Just wanted to clarify that issue. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, sounds like we have consensus on the term "primary care provider"! Lamaybe (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What a joke, this page is so full of wrong info Wikipedia should be sued for allowing the distribution of such crap

==Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine vs. Doctor of Naturopathy vs. Naturopathic Doctor vs Naturopathic Physician vs. Naturopath==

Lamaybe and travisthurston may have the best aproach to dealing with the problem described above, namely to restrict the article to a description of "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" rather than turning it into an article about all of the other titles and degrees/diplomas out there. But there are some serious problems to this aproach:

"Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" as degree/diploma

1. Are we absolutely sure that all of the CNME accredited schools are issuing the degree/diploma "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine"?
2. Is the fact that some (at least two) non-accredited schools offer a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" notable? I believe that this info belongs in the article, but not in the lead.

OK, so all 7 schools that are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by the CNME say on their websites that they offer the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" (the title of this article). I have only seen one correspondence school which offers the degree "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine"-- that is Clayton college, and theyony offer it to MDs. By all means, please, someone put this info somewhere in the article. Lamaybe (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" as a professional title

According to p 19 of the Colorada Sunrise Report:

• only four states use and protect the title "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine"
• four states use and protect the title "Naturopathic Doctor"
• four states use and protect the title "Doctor of Naturopathy" (sigh!).
• seven states use and protect the title "Naturopathic Physician".
• one state protects and uses the title "Naturopath" (double sigh!!)

All of these titles are used to indicate the NPLEXed graduates of a CNME accredited four year school. A 'Naturopath' in Conneticut can order X-Rays, and a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" in Arizona can not.

So the question becomes: do we really want an article that is exclusively about the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree and title? Or are we looking for an article that is about NPLEXed graduates of a CNME accredited school? I think that this is what the intention of the article was originally. The main Naturopathy article describes the principles of nat-med and briefly mentions the different types of practitioners: 'Traditional naturopaths' and what it calls 'Naturopathic Doctors'. The present article was supposed to be about the latter (graduates from CNME accredited schools). The problem is that the title used by these grads varies and overlaps with titles used by the 'traditional naturopaths'. My sense is that we need an article that focuses on the professionally trained practitioners from accredited schools. As it stands, the article focuses on a single title that these practitioners either do not have exclusive access to or may not use at all. Options? Naturstud (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that an encyclopedia is arranged around words and phrases, not ideas. So, there is a phrase which captures the idea you're taking about--maybe "NPLEXed graduates of a CNME accredited naturopathic medical school", but do we really want an article with that title? I think the most elegant thing to do is to keep this article about the degree. All 7 CNME schools offer the same degree, and the article should mention the Clayton College wrinkle too. Maybe the article should draw from the sunrise report and mention what titles holders of the degree can use in which states, and what prescriptive, surgical, and other rights they are granted in which states. That's specific, referenceable, relevant information, and would only serve to clarify things for the knowledge-hungry readers of this article. Lamaybe (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added some detail and renamed the 'ND Title in North America' section to 'Professional titles used by NDs in North America'. The closest I can come to sorting out the confusion is to separate the concept of an academic title (degree/diploma) granted by a school from the concept of a professional title (required to do business as a health care practitioner in regulated jursidictions). If anyone has a source re:professional titles used in Canada, speak up! I have also updated the redirects so that all of the professional titles in question now send the user to this article.Naturstud (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added professional title info for BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and - who knew - Nova Scotia, which recently regulated naturopathic medicine. Naturstud (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Naturopathic medical school in North America into this article.

There is an awful lot of overlap between this article that describes the academic degree (and those who sail in her) and the article that describes the curriculum at schools that offer that same degree. I for one am geing tired of updating the same regulation information and debating the finer points of 'naturopathic primary care' in multiple articles. Thoughts? Naturstud (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are such diverse articles as Medical school, Medical school in the United States, Medical school in Canada, Doctor of Medicine, and Medical doctor (which redirects to [Physician]]), and of course the infamous Medical degree. I think since both articles are talking about real, notable, distinct entities, both articles should stay. I think all the repetition is happening because both articles want to describe the profession of Naturopathic Doctor, the profession in which one diagnoses, treats, refers, orders & interprets labs, and is knowledgeable about pharmaceuticals and CAM modalities. If there were a way to write an article about that profession, most or all of the repetition in "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" (the degree and title) and "Naturopathic medical school in North America" would disappear from those articles and appear in the profession article instead. Any ideas? Lamaybe (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree

"Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" is unquestionably a degree. But is it medical? A quick trip to dictionary.com reveals that something "medical" has to do with medicine. "Medicine" is generally described as diagnosing and treating, using drugs, diet, exercise, etc. This is exactly what graduates of the CNME accredited schools are licensed to do in 23 jurisdictions in North America. I think this article is pretty clearly about a medical degree. Lamaybe (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Check out Medical degree, an article that until recently redirected to Doctor of Medicine, as though there were no other medical degrees out there. Naturstud (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not how the language is commonly used. You will never hear a dentist, chiropractor, podiatrist, or Naturopathic doctor tell you they went to "medical school" and that they hold a "Medical degree". If they did you would assume/infer that they hold a an MD degree. All of these degrees can be classified as "first professional degree" (see first professional degree) or "health care degrees", however.. they are not "medical degrees". Jwri7474 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of expanding Jwri's universe, here goes:

• "I went to medical school to study naturopathic medicine. It almost killed me (a medical curriculm is tough one!), but I now hold a medical degree in naturopathy. The most chalenging part of my medical training was my first gyne exam, but every medical student has to go through this... My patients come to see me with medical problems, and I often order medical tests before reaching a diagnosis. My favorite modality is botancal medicine, although medical acupuncture is becoming increasingly popular, I have noticed. I once prescribed medical marijuana to a patient with HIV/AIDS. His medical coverage did not remburse him for the pot, but it did cover the cost if his visit to see me. I refer some of my patients for allopathic (conventional) medical treatment or assesment where apropriate. I have had patients refered to me by other medical practitioners, in return, including allopaths....Communicating a diagnosis, venipuncture, IV therapy and digital rectal examination are controlled medical acts in the jurisdiction where I practice, and luckily naturopathic doctors are permited by law to practice these and certain other medical procedures...In the last term of my clinical roation, I left my medical bag with all my medical gear in it in the medical clinic where i was training, and it was stolen (true), perhaps by an MD who thought that it was innapropraite for me to be using medical equipement in the first place (probably not true). I was glad that at the time welch-allyn gave discounts to medical students, because no medical student can get through medical school without proper medical equpment."
  

.... It's just an adjective, dude, and it means lots of things in lots of contexts. ; ) Naturstud (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There only medical degrees are MBBS, MD, DO and and variants of these which contain the same curriculum in medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choppamx (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Choppamx, this discussion has been had already. Have a look at this talk page: Medical degree/talk. The term has been used (here in wiki land) to refer to any degree that is medically related. Jwri7474 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached on medical degree was *not* that the term should refer to 'any degree that is medically related', which is why Jwri's suggestions - nursing, reiki and paramedic degrees - were rejected. A set of guidlines was established at Talk:Medical_degree. The Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine meets both the usage-based and the practice-based criteria. Naturstud (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. the guidlines (set by Naturstud) which we finally settled on is the following: The presence or absence of any one of the following examples should not automatically exclude or include a particular degree: "Usage-based citations refer directly to the existence of a "_____ medical degree" or a "Doctor of ______ medicine" degree. Preferred sources include: governments, legislation, government accredited agencies, boards of medicine, accredited schools, practitioners who have graduated from such a school, professional associations, and major national or international media references. Practice-based citations indirectly suggest that a holder of a degree is practicing a type of medicine. Preferred references cite legislation that authorize practitioners to initiate controlled medical acts that are otherwise restricted. Examples of controlled medical acts may include: conducting a physical exam, ordering or interpreting a labratory evaluation, determining and communicating a diagnosis, and prescribing treatment. Given the international scope of Wikipedia, the locally recognized equivalent qualification that fits the above criteria shall be used interchangeably with the term degree."

This allows for certificates, and degrees of all levels to be included. The disambiguation page includes enough flexibility in the use of the term "medical degree" to include many types of medical professionals who practice a "type of medicine". This can include chinese, naturopathic, holistic, naprapathic, chiropractic, dental, podiatric, ad naseum. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So you have no intention of following the guidlines. Fine, but move it to the medical degree page. Ad nauseum indeed. Naturstud (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic primary care providers

I think this term is confusing. Primary care is a term used for the activity of a health care provider who acts as a first point of consultation for all patients. That's what people with this degree are trained and licensed to provide. I think the qualifier "naturopathic" is confusing here; there's plenty of information in the rest of the article clarifying what exactly naturopathic doctors do, and how that is different from medical or osteopathic doctors. Lamaybe (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NDs are trained as, and do indeed act as, primary care (point of first contact) providers. Primary care courses are required at each nauropathic medical college per CNME guidlines as referenced in the article. The adjective 'naturopathic' is often peppered gratuitously throughout this article and others to to satisfy those editors who place a premium on distinguishing naturopathic from allopathic medicine at the expense of clarity. The case management skills of your average modern day ND aspire to be the equivalent of your average modern day MD. This goal offends some, hence the supercilious use of the adjective 'naturopathic'.

I am not aware of any good reference that has measured the primary skills of an ND compared with an MD. I assume that NDs offer better primary care for no other reason than they spend more time interviewing patients than MDs do, but I would never dream of asserting this shameless POV in the article without some sort of reference to back it up. For all I know the primary care training I underwent as an ND was a poor imitation of the primary care training at an allopathic school. Never mind that the questions on NPLEX were 10 times more difficult than the sample USMLE questions I inadvisably used as a study tool. Naturstud (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It might also be appropriate to point out that the this applies only in the states that license the profession, in all other states the medical practice acts it is unlawful (in fact in may a felony) for these folks to hold themselves out as "primary care". Given that this is the case in about 35 of 50 states it is misleading not to have some kind of disclaimer is it not? --Ndma1 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa

I added Iowa to the list of states that do not allow the practice of Naturopathy.

"9. Is it okay for a naturopath to practice in Iowa? No. It is unlawful to practice medicine in Iowa without a license, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 147.74, 148.1, and 150A.1. It is also unlawful for an unlicensed individual, i.e., naturopath, to hold him- or herself out as a “doctor” or “physician.” Naturopathy is the practice of medicine because it involves the diagnosis and treatment of human conditions. Diagnosis can mean diagnosis of disease or conditions that may include symptoms of disease or ill health. Treatment can mean providing a remedy, cure or recommending care of some nature, e.g., diet, prescription and non-prescription medications or herbs."[4] Jwri7474 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no law in Iowa prohibiting naturopathic medicine. Please provide a proper reference that supports your assertion. The opinion of the allopathic state medical board in Iowa is a policy statement and not a law in itself: "This policy statement is not a legally binding opinion of the Board, but is only intended to provide guidance to the public." [[5]]. You could write that the state allopathic board has suggested that naturopathy is illegal in Iowa if you think that this is notable, but you can not write that naturpathy is illegal without a reference to a law that states that it is:

• "It shall be unlawful for any person whether heretofore licensed or not under the laws of this or any other State to practice naturopathy in this State." (South Carolina [[6]])
• "It is unlawful for any person to practice naturopathy in this state." (Tennessee Code 63-6-205.) [[7]]

Naturstud (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The medical practice acts in every state reserves the practice of diagnosing, and treating disease, to licensed individuals. Anybody not licensed in according with the medical practice acts is prohibited by law from holding themselves out to the public as medical doctors or primary car physicians, or from undertaking to diagnose and treat diseases. Put simply, the practice of Naturopathic Medicine as defined by the CNME, AANP and proponants of Naturopathic Medicine is unlawful in all states that do not specifically license the profession... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.112.160 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy in Britain

I can't find any evidence that the council or its accreditation has any particular official standing in the UK. It's also only sourced to the council itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be adding refs to support this in the next day or two. With a simple google search, it was pretty obvious it was legit. Give me time to find the most appropriate references. --ThujaSol∆ 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from the traditional naturopaths

Hi everybody. I consolidated a bunch of recently edited criticisms into one section. Hopefully this change meets every editor's needs for an accurate and encyclopedic article--let's talk about it here in the discussion page if we disagree. Lamaybe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

The information is verifiable making it a valid addition but I think there needs to be some work on the tone, not exactly NPOV, it might also be appropriate to include counter responses from Naturopathic Medicine advocates if there are some that can be sourced. The key here is a fair and honest NPOV representation of the profession(s). Any subjective value judgments should be left to the reader! --Ndma1 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Made some modifications to the language, removed a few improperly sourced material (George Friebott may be the current President of the ANA but a verbal eyewitness statement, although probably valid, does not meet meet wikipedias sourcing standards and was removed). I think this is moving more towards a NPOV tone but tweeks are certainly invited! --Ndma1 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial, unsourced section for revision and reinsertion

Criticisms from the traditional naturopath camp

One of the factions into which the naturopathic profession split after Benedict Lust’s death was a group that believed naturopathic education should be medicalized. This group which ultimately formed their own organization, the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians, for individuals wishing practice as 'primary care doctors'. The American Naturopathic Association - founded by Dr. Lust refers to this faction as the 'pseudomedicalists'. During a two-year period between the death of Dr. Lust and the American Naturopathic Association's Golden Jubilee this splinter group waged a battle for control of the profession. Between July 27 and August 1, 1947 the American Naturopathic Associations Golden Jubilee Congress affirmed its founding principles and defined the profession specifically excluding medical approaches stating "Naturopathy does not make use of synthetic or inorganic vitamins or minerals, or of drugs, narcotics, surgery, serums, vaccines, anti-toxins, toxiod, injections or inoculations.: preserving the profession from those seeking to 'medicalize' naturopathy. Traditional Naturopathy, embodied in The American Naturopathic Association, The American School of Naturopathy, and the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA remains true to the founding principles of Dr. Lust. These organizations do not however recognize Naturopathic Medicine or the schools of Naturopathic Medicine, stating that the philosophy is inconsistent with standard established in 1938, and that the schooling of Naturopathic Medicine was deficient in coursework.

A group looking to modernize the profession started its own school (the National College of Naturopathic Medicine) and formed the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to accredit itself The National Association of Naturopathic Physicians adopted a legislative and litigation against states. The combination of several educational scandals (selling diplomas) involving NANP schools and litigation against 30 states aimed at forcing states to license the profession resulted in a backlash from Attorney General's and state legislators. Ultimately 19 of the 23 states that licensed naturopathy had either repealed those laws, saw those laws struck down in court or otherwise no longer were actively regulating the profession. The NANP became ineffective in forwarding its goals and was dissolved reincarnating into the CNME. Based on sunset reports in the majority of those states which repealed their licensing laws did so due to inadequate education or poor educational standards. To address this it would be necessary for the CNME to be recognized by the profession. The only problem is none of the long-standing Naturopathic associations recognized the CNME or its schools. With about 160 members the faculty and alumni of the two schools accredited by the CNME formed the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians in 1985. In essence the National College of Naturopathic Medicine was formed, the same people forming this college formed the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (later the CNME) and the same people formed the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

Correspondence schools

The standards required for traditional naturopathy are well established, in the document "Standardized Naturopathy" by former ANA President Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO. and still recognizdd by the American Naturopathic Association, and the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA. Those schools that do not meet the standards set forth therein, be they residential or correspondence schools, are not recognized by the ANA for the purpose of certification or granting delegate status..

Provisions in the licensing laws for Minnesota , and California specifically protect the rights of Traditional Naturopaths to practice Naturopathy. Language in the Idaho Licensing acts exclude those practices normally engaged in by Traditional Naturopaths

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD) - Doctor of Naturopathy (ND)

This is from the Department of Education Site:

Council on Naturopathic Medical Education 2003/2005/S2008 Scope of recognition: the accreditation and pre-accreditation throughout the United States of graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.). Title IV Note: Accreditation by this agency does not enable the entities it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs

Degree designation for Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) is distinguished from Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) by the authority granting recognition. given the authority granting recognition does not indicate "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD or ND) it would appear to be inaccurate to do so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi NDMA!

Great to get a variety of perspectives on this, thanks. When I started this article, I did my best to parallel the articles 'Osteopathy' and 'Osteopathic medicine in the United States'. Naturopathy and osteopathy are both valuable healing arts practiced by lay healers around the world, who are not (as far as I know)licensed in any place to be primary care providers. In contrast, the 'Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine' degree and 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' degree are both degrees offered only at North American schools that then allow the graduate to be licensed as a PCP in some or all jurisdictions in the US and Canada.

The concerns you're raising came up in early discussions after the creation of this article & its sister article 'Naturopathic Medical School in North America', about what degree is offered by the correspondence schools which graduate the traditional naturopaths, and which is offered at the brick & mortar schools which graduate the licensed primary care providers. The DOE definition sure doesn't clear things up!

We ended up looking at the web sites for each of the CNME schools and each of the correspondence schools. Each of the CNME accredited schools' websites say they offer the ND degree, which they say is the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine', except the Arizona school, which offers the NMD, which they say is for 'Naturopathic Medical Doctor'. Each of the correspondence schools' websites says it offers the ND degree, which they say is the "Doctor of Naturopathy." Clayton College also offers a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine", but only MDs and DOs are eligible to obtain it from them.

So the editors working on this article at the time agreed that "doctor of naturopathic medicine" was the best title for this article if we included the caveat about the Arizona school.

Lamaybe (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate text argues error in fact:

Concerning the school in Portland, the article states:

Indented line

The National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) was founded in 1956 in Portland, Oregon, but, until the mid-1970s, had very few students. From 1960 through 1968, the average enrollment was eight and the total number of graduates was 16.

Concerning the school in Seattle, the article states:

Indented line

The National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) operated in Seattle, WA until the mid-1970s where they had very few students. From 1960 through 1968, the average enrollment was eight and the total number of graduates was 16.

The coincidence is just too great to be factual. This must be an error. 76.22.14.40 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)DeCoursey