Naturopaths want "primary care physician" status

[Paladin]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/107563176879930.xml

What is proposed is that Ohio recognize naturopathic physicians as primary-care general practitioners who are trained experts in natural medicine. They would have to cooperate with all other branches of medical science and refer patients to M.D.s, osteopaths and surgeons for diagnosis and treatment when appropriate.

Dr. Jeffrey Susman, a professor who directs the family medicine department at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, opposes any official recognition of naturopathic physicians.

"The problem that I have is that, by licensing them, the state would be saying there is some basis to it," he said. Susman is also editor of the Journal of Family Medicine, a medical journal that counts 86,000 of the nation's family doctors among its subscribers.

There is an absence of scientific proof that many remedies recommended by naturopaths have desired medical benefits, Susman said.

"Until we've gotten some better evidence of effectiveness, I think we'd be sending people in the wrong direction," he said.

At present, anyone in Ohio can declare himself a naturopath, and a number of people who call themselves naturopathic physicians are operating around the state.
The gist of this is that they want to establish licensing standards, so that persons practicing as "Naturopaths" must pass state examinations, have accredited education, etc.

I share the opinion of those who oppose this -- establishing licensing standards will only serve to create a false legitimacy to the field of "naturopathy". Even if you're an accredited, officially-sanctioned practitioner in a field that has no good evidence to show that it works at all, it doesn't mean that it works.

I mean, the state could establish criteria for me to become a licensed practitioner of sacrificing goats to scare evil spirits -- doesn't mean that it works.

[geni]

of course they should have lisencing standards. Excatly the same standards as thoes that aply for real doctors

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think it would be fine as long as the naturopath's office consisted of nothing but a waiting room with a big green button. You press it and a voice says "I'm referring you to a medical doctor."

~~ Paul

[Rolfe]

I am so glad I don't like in Merika. I'll never complain about the NHS again (until next time!).

Rolfe.

[HopkinsMedStudent]

rolfe,

I thought that the NHS allows people some access to be treated by naturopaths/homeopaths. Is that not the case?

whats the status of these kind of "doctors" in england?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ohrryp
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/107563176879930.xml

The gist of this is that they want to establish licensing standards, so that persons practicing as "Naturopaths" must pass state examinations, have accredited education, etc.
Would this suggest the positive effectiveness of Naturopathy would be required to be established?

If so, I wouldnt see anything to worry about.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by HopkinsMedStudent
rolfe,

I thought that the NHS allows people some access to be treated by naturopaths/homeopaths. Is that not the case?

whats the status of these kind of "doctors" in england? There are qualified doctors who practise homoeopathy. There are even some homoeopathic hospitals.

But the day anyone who has not been through medical school and registered with the GMC is allowed to set up as a "primary care physician" (GP, I presume), is the day I emigrate.

Bottom line is, even though real medicine tolerates some serious fruitcakes in its ranks (having convinced Queen Victoria who passed it down the family helped there), and there is a bit of "complementary" quackery fiddling around on the sidelines alongside respectable things like physiotherapy, you don't get to be a doctor unless you are a doctor.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

All these people have to do to qualify as primary care physicians is to pass in a qualified med school, do residency, etc - same as you or I need to, to become a real doctor.

Easy.

[Badger]

Why would they be primary care physicians? Wouldn't they be specialists, similar to osteopaths, obstetricians, anaesthesiologists, gastroenterologists, etc ?(oh, without the medical degree that the others I mentioned, of course)

One goes to a GP for primary care, and they refer you to the apropriate specialst, don't they? So of the GP figures you need a bunch of placebos, he could refer you to a naturopath, right?

Saaaayyyyy, this may help unload a bunch of hypochondriacs onto a bunch of quacks! Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing!

(please not, the above is dripping with sarcasm)

[Suezoled]

In Similar news, many chiropractor schools are advertising themselves as Doctor of Chiropractic and Primary Care Physician Schools.

Responding to the many changes affecting not only chiropractic, but health care in general, Palmer College West has developed a curriculum that continues the Palmer tradition of excellence in chiropractic technique and philosophy while expanding emphasis on chiropractic patient care management and the doctor of chiropractic's role as a primary health care provider.

http://www.palmer.edu/PCCW_Academics/DC/DCCurriculum.htm

[bug_girl]

yes. i really, really struggle with these schools wanting to come on my campus and recruit students. and the students they get are the ones who flunked the MCATs.
I really don't think that a major land grant university should be allowing naturopathic or homeopathic schools to attend a graduate school fair. however, i don't see a way to stop it.

[Badger]

One of my concerns about this is what consequences the malpractice suits resulting from these quacks seriously screwing up their patients (rather than giving them appropriate, real medical care) will have on the insurance rates of legitimate doctors.

I would hate for these yahoos to compromise the level of health care in general, by increasing the costs of being a doctor, and so driving qualified people to other careers, and raising the general costs of healthcare.

I sure hope the AMA, etc nips this in the bud, agressively.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badger
Saaaayyyyy, this may help unload a bunch of hypochondriacs onto a bunch of quacks!Many people believe that is the reason homoeopaths are tolerated within the NHS.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

The REAL issue is to do with money, as ever. Nothing at all to do with ethics or science or acceptance, just money. Look far enough behind the reasons why they want this arangement and the reason will be purely money. Usually it will be in the form of availability of taxes by way of payments for treatments.

So perhaps another angle could be to convince the health insurance and medical coverage bodies to NOT cover unproven or plainly quack treatments. And to have an open, scientifically tested and international "register" of "approved" treatments that are acceptable to all real doctors. This list can be upgraded as new advances are made and old stuff is proven bad.

So if you develop a new treatment and have it truely scientifically tested and it is shown to be good for afflictions A, B and C under conditions X, Y and Z then that particular treatment under those conditions will be covered for patients everywhere. Fail to prove itself, no coverage. Not banned, just not covered financially - the patient pays their money and takes their chances with the quack, i.e. freedom of choice remains.

Not that this is a new idea, of course. It just needs to be taken out of the partisan government and "financial" hands into which it has fallen.