Naturopathy was one of the most rapidly expanding therapies over the last two decades, the institute said in its report. Naturopathic medicine "blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine," according to the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors CAND.
Therapies include diet and lifestyle changes, botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation and traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture, CAND explains on its website. Naturopathic medicine emphasizes disease as a process rather than as an entity. In his tweets, Hislop urged naturopaths to stop making patients think they need tests from their doctors, adding that when doctors disagree with a naturopath's recommendations, it compromises their relationships with their patients.
This re-education, takes AWAY time spent effectively on that patients actual health issues. This isn't helping their care! Hislop also asserted that naturopaths give their patients "a fantasy" that meets their own needs instead of the needs of the patients. Creating an expectation in patients that an unfounded treatment will work, distracts them from focusing their efforts on TRUE balance and healing in their lives! Naturopaths, giving patients hope can be helpful to their well-being.
Hislop urged that naturopaths be held accountable to their patients and to society for their actions. Do you really think you can you say the same? There is no doubt that other healthcare professionals, including physicians, provide therapies that are not supported by solid empirical evidence.
And a wide range of social forces, including a pervasive industry bias, often distorts the evidence that is used [ 18 ]. These are serious problems, for sure. But the evidence issues of the medical profession cannot, obviously, stand as a justification for not using evidence in the context of naturopaths. All healthcare options should, as much as possible, be informed by good science [ 19 ]. To this end, the medical profession has a stated commitment to evidence-based practice and is taking steps to deal with the deficits in the production and use of evidence.
As evidence improves, new practices are adopted and those shown to be ineffective are dropped. If the naturopathic medicine were truly "science based", as so often claimed by the advocates of the field, would they still be providing homeopathy as one of their core treatments?
Would chelation and colon cleanses be marketed on so many of the clinics' websites? Patients should have the option to access a wide range of healthcare practitioners. But this choice should be as informed as possible. As should the policy debates associated with the regulation of naturopaths' scope of practice.
This is particularly so given the types of conditions they seek to address. While one could argue that homeopathic treatment for the common cold is harmless, treatment for conditions such as allergies, cardiovascular problems, fertility issues and cancer raises serious ethical and legal questions. It is misleading to imply that the core services provided by naturopaths - as disclosed on clinic websites - are based on sound scientific evidence or, at least, that there is a scientific consensus about their efficacy.
According to clinic websites, allergy testing and treatment are among the most common services provided in both BC and Alberta e. It can also be argued that allergy testing performed by naturopaths are both expensive and potentially misleading, which could result in inappropriate dietary modifications [e. If the naturopathic profession wishes to present itself as science based, the treatments offered by naturopath clinics should reflect these claims.
As noted in a recent speech by the President of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, "if our profession is to be taken seriously by the larger world of medicine, we must speak in a language that everyone can understand and appreciate. That language is the language of science.
We couldn't agree more. But the profession should not just use the language of science, it must embrace and act on the conclusions of scientific inquiry. Can Respir J. Eggertson L: Naturopathic doctors gaining new powers. Colquhoun D: Science degrees without the science. Skolnick AA: Voice of reason: licensing naturopaths may be hazardous to your health. Google Scholar. Bielory L: Complementary and alternative interventions in asthma, allergy, and immunology. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
Article PubMed Google Scholar. Vancouver Sun. The Guardian. American Medical Association: Hair analysis: a potential for medical abuse. Policy number H American Cancer Society: Chelation therapy. Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Br J Clin Pharmaco. Brien S, Lachance L, Prescott P, McDermott C, Lewith G: Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Ernst E: A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Cochrane Db Syst Rev. But patients shouldn't be required to fact check their provider's background.
Using the terms "naturopathic" and "medical" as if they are interchangeable is a bait and switch designed to confuse. Condoning this behaviour as a regulator is a dereliction of duty. Patients need straightforward information about their providers. The spread of misinformation targeting people interested in alternative health demands the attention of our medical regulators.
If you're misled about the education of your provider, then that provider does not have your fully informed consent. And since informed consent is a basic health care right, this isn't just a patient safety issue — it's a patient autonomy issue as well. Two concerned physicians, Dr.
Quynh Nguyen-Giang and Dr. Linda LeBlanc from Ontario and New Brunswick respectively, have been writing letters to the provincial medical colleges and health ministries, urging them to address this issue. They're also hoping to create an online registry where anyone can report provider misrepresentation.
This will help expedite complaints, allow for a more organized response and track the extent of the problem. It's a commendable grassroots effort in light of a mostly lacklustre response from medical regulators. While New Brunswick's medical college has launched a legal challenge against several naturopaths for their false advertising, other regulators seem downright uninterested — at least in response to appeals from Drs.
Nguyen-Giang and LeBlanc. Just like rules around naturopathy vary from province to province, so too does the apparent concern evinced by the medical colleges, with some refusing to even address this problem. So if we can't reliably count on the medical and naturopathic colleges to take this seriously, then the government must step in.
Issues of patient safety — particularly ones in which laws are being openly flouted — are too important to ignore.
0コメント