"They have Lust again"

Interesting link includes an account of Benedict Lust, the father of naturopathy.
From the article:

Dr. Benedict Lust enjoys a sun-bath at "Sonnenbichel" sun and air park in Kneipp-Bad Worishofen, Bavaria, Germany on a return to the Fatherland in the summer of 1926. The "Father of Naturopathy" in America, no single individual contributed more to natural healing and lifestyle in the world than Dr. Lust did through his many schools and publications. Everything from massage, herbology, raw foods, anti-vivisection and hydro-therapy to Eastern influences like Ayurveda and Yoga found their way to an American audience through Lust. Though he was repeatedly harassed by Medical authorities and Federal agents, his devotion to promoting Nature's methods of healing finaly gained wide acceptance. Like so many others from his generation, he was a tough man. (Photo from Naturopath, February, 1927)

Dr. Lust was "busted" repeatedly by American authorities and medical associations, for promoting natural methods of healing, massage and nude sun bathing at his Jungborn sanitarium. He was arrested 16 times by New York authorities and 3 times by Feds. One news headline read simply "They Have Lust Again".

2004 Idaho Senate Committee testimony on naturopathic licensure

SB 1300	This legislation, SB1300, relating to naturopathic medicine, was presented by Senator Robert L. Geddes. There are a significantly growing number of residents of the State of Idaho who choose natural health care. Naturopathic medicine is a distinct health care profession. The purpose of this legislation is to provide standards of practice and education, a code of ethics for practitioners, state administrative supervision, licensure, regulation and disciplinary procedures for every person providing naturopathic medical services in the state. There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.
	Boyd Landry, executive director of the Coalition for Natural Health, testified to oppose SB1300. He explained his opposition to licensing of naturopathic physicians. The Coalition for Natural Health is headquartered in the District of Columbia with a regional office in San Diego. The Coalition for Natural Health (CNH) is a non-profit organization representing over 2,500 individuals nationwide who share a common goal: to promote the holistic approach to health and to ensure that natural health alternatives remain widely accessible to the public. The mission of the Coalition for Natural Health is: to educate the public as to the true meaning and benefits of traditional naturopathy; to educate legislators on the efficacy of traditional naturopathy; and to prevent legislation that would prohibit traditional naturopaths from practicing now and in the future. Before addressing the specific reasons for our opposition, I would like to address the proponents' true need to pass this legislation. As opposed to their stated need, the "naturopathic physician's" true agenda for this legislation is economic protection. The proponents need this bill because a new law creating a new medical profession is necessary to allow them to perform the range of medical services they want to perform and because some of these services would be interpreted as the practice of medicine. In other words, it is all about money and self-interest. Dr. Rena Bloom, a Denver "naturopathic physician" was quoted in the Colorado Daily (Exhibit 1) on Monday, January 18, 1999, as stating "We need this bill because at this point, we're illegal ­ we're practicing medicine without a license." REQUIREMENTS OF LICENSURE - There are several contentious parts to SB1300: 1) Qualifications for Licensure; 2) Scope of Practice; and, 3) Title Protection. The proponents of this legislation will argue that twelve states have passed licensing legislation, of this type, and that Idaho should follow suit. However, since 1996, twenty states (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Texas, Minnesota, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, and Idaho) have rejected licensing legislation and twelve of these (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Rhode Island and Texas) rejected it more than once. In total, it has been rejected on over 50 different occasions in the past seven years. Section 54-5102(1) provides as follows for all would-be licensees to be graduates from approved naturopathic colleges: 1) "Approved naturopathic medical program" means: (a) A course of study from a college or university granting the degree of doctor of naturopathy or doctor of naturopathic medicine accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the state or federal government; or (b ) A college or university granting the degree of doctor of naturopathy, or doctor of naturopathic medicine that has the status of candidate for accreditation with the accrediting agency; or ( c ) A postgraduate degree granting college or university of the healing arts approved by the examining board and state or federal accrediting agency. Such college or university shall require a minimum of sixty (60) semester units for admission and a minimum of four thousand (4,000) hours in basic and clinical sciences, naturopathic philosophy, naturopathic modalities, and naturopathic medicine, of which not less than two thousand (2,000) hours shall be academic instruction and not less than two thousand (2,000) hours shall be school or college approved supervised clinical training. The college or university shall provide adequate instruction to maintain naturopathic medicine as a separate and distinct healing art." A close look at "naturopathic medical" schools reveals inherent problems with this type of education. The faculty of Bastyr University (Exhibit 2), the only fully "accredited school" highlights the limitations of the "medical" education claimed by graduates of these schools. Recent information from www.bastyr.edu shows a total of 46 faculty members in the "naturopathic medicine" program with 43 of those listing degree of "N.D." as their primary qualification. Of the three "non-N.D." degreed professionals, there is only one M.D.! Thirty-nine of Bastyr's faculty, forty-six members hold N.D. degrees from Bastyr as their primary qualification. Seventeen of the thirty-nine have had their degrees for five years or less. Three hold N.D.'s from National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland. Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM) located in Tempe, Arizona, is the newest "candidate" for accreditation. However, SCNM has an extensive list of problems. Initially, for the majority of time in SCNM's existence, the school could only attain candidacy status for accreditation with the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME). SCNM was only able to reach full accreditation with CNME after the CNME violated its own policies to accredit the school. Incredibly, CNME granted full accreditation less than 90 days after SCNM suspended operations to address severe financial problems in the summer of 1999. These egregious violations of its own policies resulted in the revocation of CNME' s recognition as an accrediting agency by the United States Department of Education. In addition, The Arizona Republic (Exhibit 3) reported hazardous environmental conditions at SCNM in a September 12, 2001 article which stated, "Several students have alleged that the school, one of four of its kind in the country, has made them sick because of improper ventilation of its cadaver lab, among other things." The Auditor General for the State of Arizona in a June 2000 (Exhibit 4) report to the Legislature reported that at least 19 individuals received a license to practice naturopathic medicine without properly passing the required examination given by the Arizona Board of Naturopathic Medicine. The report stated, "Everyone passed the February 1999 exam, but without scoring adjustments, no one would have passed." In fact, the auditor herself who had absolutely no training in naturopathic medicine took the exam and passed after using the same scoring adjustments. What does that say? In the past, proponents of this bill have provided legislators with a chart that compares the three "naturopathic medical" schools to top medical schools such as Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Stanford. This chart compares course hours, and implies that these "naturopathic medical" schools are academically on par with, or better than, the best medical schools in the United States. However, these schools have practically no medical doctors on staff, and the first of these schools to be accredited (Bastyr) was not accredited until the late 1980s. National College and SCNM only have candidacy status. Most of the instructors at these schools are "naturopathic physicians," which means that most instructors either graduated from unaccredited schools or are relatively new to practice. I ask you to closely examine the faculty at National College in Exhibit 5 where you will find that 24 (60%) of the 40 faculty members with National College degrees received their degree prior to National receiving candidacy status. In fact, the faculty member who teaches oncology and gynecology lists National College as her only credential. Moreover, National College has had three different presidents in the past two-years, which is cause for additional concern. The truth is "naturopathic medical" education and training mimics medical education and training in form, but not in content! Conventional medical students start clinical work under physician supervision in their third and fourth years, and are assigned to work in major teaching hospitals and clinics. Even after four years of medical school, graduates are ineligible for full medical licenses but must enter residency programs which last between three and eight years. It is clear that "naturopathic medical" colleges in the United States do not provide the equivalent of a medical education. Dr. Richard Roberts, Board Chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians summed it up best in The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2002, when he said, "Naturopaths should not be the coordinator of care. There's a world of difference [compared with M.D.s] in terms of the training, the ongoing education, and the day-to-day work. It is like having the flight attendants fly the plane." The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), the accreditation board that recently accredited naturopathic medical institutions and programs, had its recognition withdrawn in 2001 by the United States Department of Education (Exhibit 6) because it demonstrated "pervasive non-compliance" in "not following its own standards." If they are willing to cut corners with their accrediting agency, who is to say that they would not cut corners on the Advisory Committee on Naturopathic Medicine? History does have a way of repeating itself. NATUROPATHY VS. NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE - A person who feels ill and sees an allopathic physician will typically be given a diagnosis to name the disease and then a prescription for medication to kill the germs that cause the illness. Once the symptoms have disappeared, the person is considered healthy. The allopathic approach to healing is to find the agent of disease-that is, bacteria or virus--and then to kill it. Vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature, is central to traditional naturopathic philosophy. This philosophy holds that disease occurs when toxins that have accumulated internally­usually due to incorrect lifestyle, a poor diet, and improper care of the body which weakens the body. Bacteria and viruses, which are always present, seldom cause problems in a healthy body. While allopathic methods of treatment may get rid of symptoms, these treatments alone do not bring healing. The human body is designed to heal itself. Traditional naturopathic modalities stimulate the body's inner forces to get rid of accumulated toxins and thereby allow intrinsic healing to take place. Rather than trying to attack specific diseases, traditional naturopaths focus on cleansing and strengthening the body. Traditional naturopaths avoid procedures that are common to medical care-diagnosing disease, treating disease, prescribing drugs and pharmaceuticals, and performing invasive procedures. Instead, traditional naturopaths focus on health and education, teaching their clients how to create internal and external environments that are conducive to good health. This is how naturopathy was meant to be practiced as described by Benedict Lust's obituary reported in The New York Times, "The members of the American Naturopathic Association do not believe in ...drug treatments, medicinal remedies or vivisection. " (Exhibit 7) Traditional naturopathy is simply not the practice of medicine. Diagnosing and treating disease, prescribing drugs and pharmaceuticals, performing major and minor surgery, giving injections and drawing blood, and performing other invasive procedures are medical practices that are outside the scope of traditional naturopathy. Anyone who performs these procedures without a license is illegally practicing medicine and, under existing laws, can be and should be prosecuted for doing so without a license. While self-styled "naturopathic physicians" seek to claim the same core philosophy as traditional naturopaths, in practice, they move into territory long held by allopathic physicians. "Naturopathic physicians" seek to have laws enacted that would authorize them to perform minor surgery, practice obstetrics including episiotomies, prescribe certain drugs including some synthetic antibiotics, and use many allopathic diagnostic procedures including X-rays, electrocardiograms, ultrasound, and clinical laboratory tests. These procedures move "naturopathic medicine" far from the realm of traditional naturopathy and into the practice of medicine. This is why, "naturopathic physicians" are seeking to be licensed; otherwise, in conducting their desired scope of practice they would be illegally practicing medicine. FISCAL IMPACT - A close look at Senate Bill 1300 reveals that the potential licensees will not support the cost of regulation through fees. Given the fact that the program has no way to support itself, it is inappropriate for Idaho to create a new program for which only eleven (11) individuals will be eligible, especially a program Idaho would have to subsidize. There is no need for a new medical profession and certainly no legitimize basis for Idaho to subsidize it! Furthermore, if a person needs any surgery or prescription drugs there are already licensed medical doctors to fill this need. Practically and fiscally speaking there is simply no demonstrated need for this hybrid profession. SCOPE OF PRACTICE - If "naturopathic physicians" are allowed by Idaho to "diagnose and treat" disease, prescribe medications, and perform surgery , a "new medical profession" will be created and they will be elevated to the status of primary care physicians. This promotion is high on their agenda because of the status and the money associated with it. Thomas Kruzel, Chief Medical Officer at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and former President of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, was quoted in the Spring 1994 edition of The Naturopathic Phvsician (Exhibit 8) as saying, "Naturopathic physicians are primary care, family practice physicians, and as such are gate keepers to the medical system, along with family practice MDs and DOs." By licensing "naturopathic physicians" Idaho would be equating "naturopathic physicians" with MDs and DOs, because "naturopathic physicians" will inform their "patients" that there is no need to continue to see a regular medical physician, as they have consistently done in states where they are licensed. These "patients" assume "naturopathic physicians" have an education from legitimate medical schools approved by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. The lack of a need for a "new medical profession" is one of the primary reasons licensing efforts like this one have been rejected on over 50 separate occasions in the last seven years. In a sworn deposition (Exhibit 9) Mr. Kruzel defined minor surgery in this way:" . . . generally it means that you do not enter a body cavity." The Oregon "naturopathic medicine" licensing law defines minor surgery as "the use of electrical or other methods for the surgical repair and care incident thereto of superficial lacerations and abrasions, benign superficial lesions, and the removal of foreign bodies located in the superficial structures; and the use of antiseptics and local anesthetics in connection therewith." It is difficult to reconcile Kruzel's definition of minor surgery with the actual wording of the Oregon law. Furthermore, Kruzel has given the following sworn testimony regarding his qualifications to perform vasectomies: Q: You mentioned that you could do vasectomies on male gonads; is that correct? A: That's correct...Q: You don't consider that to be an invasive procedure? A: Certainly it's an invasive procedure, but it doesn't invade a body cavity, the scrotum is considered an appendix. Q: And is this procedure taught at National College? A: I don't know if it is or not. ..I'm saying that it's within the scope of naturopathic medical practice, and I believe that it probably is taught in school. ..Q: How many vasectomy operations did you do in school? ...A: I did no vasectomies. Q: Do you feel that the fact that you did no vasectomies in school qualifies you to do them in the scope of practice out here with the public? A: Yes. It's a relatively simple procedure to do. Q: Could you learn this procedure by a video tape? A: Possibly. The Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians (WANP) exposed their real agenda of displacing medical doctors as justification to expand prescriptive rights for "naturopathic physicians" to include Schedule II drugs. In a 1998 report to the Washington legislature, the WANP stated, "The primary reason for this language change is to ensure that patients seeking naturopathic care will not unnecessarily be burdened with seeking a second office visit by another licensed practitioner (i.e. a real medical doctor) in order to get, for example, codeine cough syrup or an antibiotic which is not currently in the list of legend drugs that a naturopathic physician can prescribe." Fortunately, the Washington legislature exposed the ruse and did not grant additional scope. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN FRANCISCO -CENTER FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONS - The Center for Health Professions at the University of California, San Francisco, released a study funded by The Arkay Foundation in September of 200 I titled, "Profiling the Professions: A Model for Evaluating Emerging Health Professions" and an accompanying profile titled, "Profile of a Profession: Naturopathic Practice." The study recognized the right of professions to not seek state regulation choosing to allow market forces and consumer choice to protect the public. It stated, ". ..professions have declined regulation, basing their decision on the low potential risk of harm to the public, evidence that regulation can negatively affect access to care, and the capacity of the market to weed out the lower qualified members of the profession." The study also spoke to the true reason that groups seek state regulation-POWER -when it stated that: " Although regulation is the legislatures' decision, legislatures virtually never seek to regulate a profession on their own. When it is enacted, it is almost always after long and contentious battles between competing or would-be competing professions. Therefore, though informative, the existence of regulation mayor may not mean much more beyond the capacity of the would-be regulated profession to gamer sufficient political power ." WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE POLICY (WHCCAMP) - By Executive Order 13147, the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy was created in March of 2000 and completed its work in March 2003 with the submission of its report, http://www.whccamp.hhs.gov/finalreport.html, to the Office of the President. The Commission was comprised of 20 members, and the Commission held 10 meetings in Washington, DC, and four town hall meetings around the United States. It is important to recognize that a study of this magnitude will have a number of divergent opinions on a wide variety of topics. The proponents sometimes represent that the Commission recommended that every state should license "naturopathic physicians." However, an accurate reading of the report reveals such representations are untrue. In the section titled " Access and Delivery," the commission provided guidance to Idaho when it stated, "Now is the time to look at policy options for the future and to design strategies for addressing potential issues of access and safety .Beyond these basic concerns, protecting the public, maintaining free competition in the provision of CAM services, and maintaining the consumer's freedom to choose appropriate health professionals are issues to be considered when developing strategies and policies." Secondly, the Commission made it clear that concern exists in the CAM community over appropriate regulatory frameworks for CAM, especially frameworks designed using current regulatory models. The report stated, "Some CAM professionals believe that to reorganize CAM on the conventional professional model, with the kind of licensure, registration, or exemption procedures that this implies, will damage the fundamental character of much of CAM. Some believe that in the past, legislation to "protect the public" was often used to restrict competition in the provision of services." Thirdly, a well-respected physician and a member of the Commission, Dr. Tieraona Low Dog, teamed up with another member of the Commission to send a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to address a number of issues included in the report. One issue related to equating CAM practitioners with designated primary care specialties. They stated: "While we endorse demonstration projects that seek to identify what, if any, value "CAM" providers add to established primary care teams, we want to go on record noting that we do not believe that CAM providers are fungible with the primary care providers enumerated in Title VII. Further, "Efforts (such as Senate Bill 1039) to equate their degree of training, or the scientific basis of their practice, with that of the designated primary care specialties puts the public at risk of receiving unvalidated and non-evidence based primary care." CONCLUSION - The reasons set forth above demonstrate why licensure for this new "medical profession" should not be considered. It is clear that the education of "naturopathic physicians" does not meet the standards one would expect from primary care providers who diagnose and treat disease, prescribe medications, deliver babies, and perform surgery, and this is a role already being filled by medical doctors. If licensure is granted, those so-called "naturopathic physicians" will be so elevated in stature that they will be perceived by the public as equal to the far more extensively- trained allopathic physicians, thus creating the potential for confusion and providing of improper medical care. If licensure is not granted, "naturopathic physicians" may continue to practice in the same manner that is legal today- without making diagnoses, without prescribing medications, and without performing invasive procedures. Those who perform these procedures without a license will be practicing medicine without a license and will be breaking the law. Legal procedures are already in place for addressing this problem, at no added cost to the state. There has been no change in Idaho since last year that would establish a need for this legislation. There is absolutely no demonstrated need to create a new medical profession by licensing "naturopathic physicians." In the over 50 different occasions state legislatures have looked at this question in 1997, 1998,1999, 2000, 2001,2002, 2003, and thus far in 2004, they concluded that there is no need to create a new medical profession styled as "naturopathic medicine." Since the public is not crying out for the licensure of "naturopathic physicians," then who is? The cry for licensure is coming from eleven (11) "naturopathic physicians" in the State and their trade organization, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. This is not about public protection. This is about trying to obtain legislative economic protection, status, and power. These three "naturopathic physicians" gambled on going to school for a profession that is not licensed in 38 of the 50 states, and they now expect Idaho to bail them out! Nancy Aagenes, Past-President of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, stated in 1996 and it is still true today, "Nonetheless a student coming out of our schools, uncertain and anxious anyway often simply will not practice in an unlicenced state. If enough of us default on our loans, a major source of income for our schools is cut off." The State does not need to create a new medical profession known as "naturopathic medicine." Idaho needs to reject the position of the AANP as the nineteen states that considered this type of legislation in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and thus far in 2004, rejected such licensing. This legislation is nothing but a self-serving attempt by a minuscule special interest group to legitimize their alternative approach to the practice of medicine by mandating the creation of their own licensing process and to steal by legislative action the titles that have been used by registrants for over twenty years. The attached above mentioned exhibits during this testimony, and also a CD-R containing a copy of the Arizona Office of the Auditor General Performance Audit, Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Board of Examiners - June 2000 report were presented. (See Attachments #1 and #2).
	Lucy Pierson, represented herself, and testified to support SB1300. Her medical insurance does not pay for a naturopathic physician because Idaho does not require them to be licenced; therefore, insurance will not pay and a person must pay for their own medical care. Lincesure would require insurance companies to pay for medical care.
	Donna Mussell, representing herself, testified to oppose SB1300. She explained she has operated a business in Boise for 15 years, and naturopathic medicine is a very established form of medical care. She does not want the law to the enforced licensing law in Idaho. She seeks natural health and wants the freedom of choice, wants to freely practice health care.
	Michele S. Morgan, M.H., PhD, president of the Idaho Coalition for Natural Health, testified to oppose SB1300. On February 24, 2004, she submitted written testimony to oppose SB1300, as shown: I am president of the Idaho Coalition for Natural Health. I am an Ordained Inter-faith Minister and a Holistic, Herbal and Homeopathic Practitioner. I have been in practice for more than 25 years and am now residing and maintaining an active alternative health care practice in Boise. It is my understanding that a small but determined group of Naturopathic Physicians are once again attempting to gamer support for their bill, SB 1300, that would require licensing. This bill, not sponsored by all Naturopaths and alternative practitioners who are practicing in Idaho at this time, will have serious opposition. This bill as it is written, does not represent the views of a majority of Naturopaths and alternative practitioners, but rather a small segment who are seeking to have the same legal rights as medical doctors to perform treatments and prescribe drugs without the benefit of a full medical education. It is my intent to share with you both my own concerns and the concerns of the ICNH board and all the ICNH members across the state. We believe that licensing is unnecessary and would serve to eliminate alternative health care options. In our minds this is a slippery slope that will u1timately 1imit, not expand alternative health care for people in need. The ICNH board and members will be attending the hearing of SB1300 on March 2, 2004. We trust that our statement of opposition and concern will be heard and taken very seriously by the committee. SB1300 asks to license Naturopaths under the guise of protecting the public but in reality this bill will only serve to compromise health freedom in Idaho. Thank you for consideration in this matter.
	Today, Dr. Morgan testified opposing SB1300. She explained, I have a Ph.D. in the Health Science of Botanical Medicine specializing in Homeopathy and Herbal medicine from Union University in Los Angeles, California. I have been in private practice for 25 years. I am here today to tell you of my experience with naturopathic lincesure in Montana in the year 2000. In 1993, before the licensing law, I worked with two Naturopathic Physicians in Helena. They were my friends. I shared office space with one of them. We referred clients to one another and taught classes together . In 1996, I was severely injured in a car accident and had to leave Montana for medical treatment. I handed over my client base to these two trusted friends. After a 3-year rehabilitation, I returned home to Helena to re-open my practice. I placed ads in the newspaper, on cable TV and radio, had a web site built and printed thousands of new brochures. Within 3 days, after my advertising began, I received a call from my Naturopathic Physician friend informing me I could no longer advertise or practice homeopathy and herbal medicine in Montana because I was not an "N.D." Her words to me were, and I quote, 'cease and desist or we'll find a way to take you out.' She stated she knew I was a respected, trusted practitioner with more years in the profession than either one of them, but that they had worked too hard for this law for me to be an exception. I called my attorney for advice. After reading the law he informed me that there was no provision for me and that my education, degrees, experience, reputation...none of it mattered. Soon, I received a letter from the Montana Medical Review Board informing me that the screening panel was considering prosecution for "practicing medicine without a license" and "holding myself out as a doctor without a license". If found guilty , I would face a $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail. My attorney replied that since being out of state, I was not informed of the licensing law and was innocent of all charges. The response was, if I agreed to maintain a silent practice, stop the ads, shut down the web site and destroy the brochures within 48 hours, the inquiry would be dropped. I was in shock; heartbroken. My clients were enraged that their health freedom was being denied and begged me to fight it. But, truly, I couldn't face jail time or court fees. Ultimately, I was forced to leave the state I called home. I came to Idaho to practice under its current Health Freedom Law. In my mind, SB 1300, as it is written, is the beginning of this story allover again­ for myself and all of Idaho's non-licensed practitioners, AND their clients­present and future. Please vote no on SB1300.
	Laurence Smith, testified to oppose SB1300. He explained he is not a doctor, he is an herbalist and owner of a health food store. He had a heart attack and traditional medication did not work. He looked for a teacher and has studied herbal medicine for 19 years. He stated, I teach empower. He wants people to have the knowledge and power to change and improve their lives. Laws should solve problems, so what is the problem? If there is a problem, is this the best solution? In the proposed law there is a list of things naturopaths do, but in the exclusions many of these items have been omitted. We have a good law.
	Joan Haynes, ND, a naturopathic physician who is licensed in the state of Oregon, testified to support SB1300. She believes that due to the Idaho not requiring licensing it limits her abilities to operate.
	Lyn Darrington testified to oppose SB1300, and that the Idaho Association of Health Plans , Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, does not support this legislation.
	Mark Michaud, M.D., testified to support SB1300. He outlined the importance of having accountability and standards, and how important it is to know when to refer to a medical physician.
	Debbie Dalrymple, testified to oppose SB1300. She believes people should have the right to choose to die with dignity. She asked what is wrong with the current law? Why spend money to fix something that is not broken?
	Dr. Todd Schlapfer testified to support SB1300. He represented the Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians and testified, I am a practicing naturopathic physician in Coeur d'Alen. I received my doctorate in naturopathic medicine from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, and hold a license to practice naturopathic medicine in our neighboring state of Montana. I am in favor of SB 1300. Naturopathic medicine is a distinct, comprehensive system of natural health care based upon a thorough grounding in biomedical science. What conventional medicine and naturopathic medicine have in common is education in biomedical science. What is different and distinguishes our professions is our education in unconventional medical science and therapeutic modalities. It would never be possible to merge the two professions into an indistinguishable singularity. As an ND, if l wanted to become an MD, I would have to go to an MD school with the privilege of bypassing most of the already traversed medical science. If an MD wanted to become a naturopathic physician, one would have to do the same through an ND school. Unfortunately, because some states, like Idaho, do not yet license naturopathic physicians, this distinction is murky. For example, there's nothing stopping an MD or any citizen from claiming to be an instantaneous ND. No standard of education or accountability required. This has become a growing problem for an increasing number of states. The established standard for a physician-level practitioner of health care is licensure. Educational qualifications are central to that determination. Accredited education is required for all licensed health care professions. SB 1300 is no exception. In the same way the Liaison Committee for Medical Education accredits medical schools, the Council on Naturopathic Education accredits naturopathic medical schools. Both are established at the federal level under the Department of Education. There is no higher educational standard. POINTS OF CLARIFICATION - Contrary to the eloquently stated assertion, we do not "deliver babies, cut on people and hand out drugs." Under 54-5108(2) it is clearly stated that one cannot do any OB without complying with established Idaho Code 54-1404, pertaining to the Idaho board of nursing. SB1300 establishes no exception to this statute. Minor office procedures are limited to the repair and care of superficial abrasions and lesions, e.g., a wart or splinter. We are prohibited from using general or spinal anaesthesia, inducing or performing an abortion, procedures involving the eye, ear, tendon, nerves veins, or arteries extending beyond superficial tissue. We cannot treat any lesion suspected of malignancy unless in collaboration with an MD or DO. Two references: 54-5102 (3), and 54-5105 (4-9). Prescriptive privileges is limited strictly to those prescription substances that are consistent with naturopathic education, training and board examination. These are natural-source medicines, e.g. thyroid, bio-identical hormones, and natural source antibiotics. This bill does not determine a formulary. SB1300 sets up a formulary council, an entity separate from and not under the authority of the board. There will be 5 members; 2 naturopathic physicians, 2 pharmacists nominated by the State Board of Pharmacy, and one MD or DO nominated by the State Board of Medicine. See 54-5109. SB1300 provides for a restricted license. This applies to practitioners who have been practicing in Idaho for at least the past 5 years and who can demonstrate a minimum of 4000 hours of academic and clinically supervised naturopathic training. This allows established practitioner to continue to practice as they have, without diagnostic imaging privileges, minor surgery privileges or prescriptive privileges. Restricted licenses will be granted once. This provision closes after six months. See 54-5112 Estimated numbers of licenses granted for the first year is significantly larger than you were told yesterday by opposing testimony. The range somewhere between 120-150. SB1300 provides no mandate for insurance coverage. Testimony has been given that may have been misleading. Florida is seriously considering a licensure bill for naturopathic physicians. A House bill will soon be introduced by Representative Bower. A number has already been assigned. California is on course to establish rules and regulations for its licensees. At the same time as our hearing, Washington D.C. voted 13-0 in favor of licensure for naturopathic physicians. It now is being prepared for signature by the mayor.
	Laurence Hicks, a physician and surgeon from Rupert, Idaho, testified he is also a naturopathic physician, and was testifying to support SB1300. He explained the issue is on using the title doctor. He wants the public to understand the different levels of education required to be a medical physician. He believes this legislation was very carefully crafted and does support SB1300.
	Written testimony was received from Townsend D. Wolfe from Boise, in opposition to SB1300, as follows: Empowering a few individuals with responsibility for which they are not fully trained (medical procedures and prescriptions) while at the same time taking away hundreds of jobs from individuals who serve others with SAFE and natural remedies is not a responsible position to take, and I strongly ask that you oppose this bill. No only will this bill restrict free enterprise from hundreds of people, but it will severely limit the ability of Idahoans to take responsibility for their health care choices.
	Written testimony was received from Terry Durst to oppose SB1300 in the strongest terms. In summary he reported: This licensing effort is another effort of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and has been around for several years now. In the Senate in 1998 and in the House in different iterations, as the proponents try to make it palatable to the Senate and House. Similar legislation did not get out of the Health and Welfare chairman's office last term in the House. Not getting out of your office would be a great service to the citizens of Idaho. This is an organization that comprises the graduates of three Naturopathic Colleges in this country who are seeking exclusive use of the term "Naturopath." They are seeking primary care physician status without having the necessary education, internships, residencies, etc. This group advocates and has authorization in the few states where they have held sway to prescribe prescription drugs for which they are not qualified. Former Senator "Moon" Wheeler, a former pharmacist was against this effort because of the pharmaceutical qualifications issue. The AANP also advocates minor surgeries. Minor surgery is defined as any surgery that does not penetrate the abdominal cavity. They also advocate episiotomies in "Natural childbirth." I'm sorry but that is NOT natural childbirth. The brand of Naturopathy or Natural Health practiced by the members of this association practice is a strange form of naturopathy. Traditional naturopathy uses no toxic substances and does no invasive procedures. Traditional naturopathy works with the natural order and in harmony with the body, while most allopathic and some of the methods of the members of AANP work against the body's natural rhythm. The AANP seeks exclusive use of the term "naturopath" which would mean that should this ill advised bill pass, many good natural health practitioners who cause no harm to society by our modalities and methods, such as myself, would not be permitted to use the name I have become accustomed to in the last ten years. I worked very hard for about four years of structured study to earn my Doctor of Naturopathy degree, preceded by 25 years self-study, and living by those principles and now 10 years of private. The Idaho State Constitution give Idaho citizens the right to treat their health as they see fit, and that practitioners may ply their skills amongst the populace without fear of State involvement so long as they do not overstep their abilities the proscribed boundaries. I urge you to oppose SB1300 in the strongest possible terms. The AANP has tried several times and will continue into the future to gain the exclusive use of the term Naturopath. They seek exclusive authority to practice what any traditional Naturopathy would shun like a bad habit. "Naturopathic heresy" is another term that could be used to describe this group which comprises only ten or eleven AANP backed and sanctioned Naturopaths. These NDs in Oregon have the title NMD. This is Naturopathic Medical Doctor. They seek primary care status and are MD wannabes. They are not qualified for such a title. It would be most unfair for all the wonderful Naturopaths and Natural Health Practitioners in this State to be thrown into limbo or worse, so that these eleven people may ply their trade as a very exclusive clique. I have no personal animosity to any member of this organization. I'm sure every member of the AANP is a very nice person and is only practicing what they have been taught. My opposition is to the "only the eleven of us" attitude and the above stated procedures and practices they advocate. I urge you to vote NAY when the time comes, and preserve the status quo in Idaho that serves its citizens very well. Do not throw many very good and well-meaning practitioners into limbo, or worse. Do not throw citizens who seek natural methods of health and healing into limbo. Many have been with particular health practitioners for years, and if that care giver doesn't meet the standards of the AANP or the State and must cease and desist, that client who may have great trust in their "natural doctor" will be searching for one of those NMDs (only eleven at this time). This is a classic case of a special interest group, a very small special interest group that is not in the best interest of all the people in the state of Idaho. Please help keep health care decisions and those who practice natural health free, at least the freedom to choose for ones' self.
	Written comments were received from Briana Werner. In summary, she reported: I am all for the naturopathic medicine. I have used a naturopathic physician in line with the regular doctors. I have avoided going to the regular doctor with sinus, menopause, cholesterol issues, sleeping, stress, and aches and pain problems. I am glad we have Naturopaths because it is nice to use non-chemical remedies with the help of a naturopath. They keep you from using the wrong kind of remedies and they know which ones won't be bad with other medications you might be on. We need someone to consult for all the vitamins, herbs and natural remedies that are out there. We really need to have the Naturopaths working side-by-side with regular doctors. I have met lots of people who are allergic to some chemicals, but can take natural remedies. It would be crazy to not have these two professionals working together. Yale has started to have them work side-by-side and so has Oregon, and some other states. Please allow the Naturopaths to be licensed in Idaho. Let us have a choice, after all, isn't that what America stands for? Chiropractors and physical therapists are a form of natural remedy, and they are licensed.
	Written comments were received from Jennifer Rizzuti, from Boise, to oppose SB1300. She wrote: As a citizen of Idaho, I would like to voice my concern over the pending Naturopath licensing bill, SB1300. In reviewing SB1300, I fail to understand the problem this bill is trying to address. It appears there is a small number of Naturopathic physicians trained in a limited number of four year degreed, on-campus universities trying to exclude traditional Naturopaths and herbalists. I am particularly disturbed by the freedom this bill provides to Naturopathic practitioners to diagnose, treat and prescribe. In addition, there appears to be no accountability to AMA-approved governing medical body. SB1300 may be presented as protection for the Idaho public, but the question to answer is, "who is currently falling ill or dying at the hands of Naturopaths in this state?" In fact, many consumers are currently receiving exceptionally good care. The existing health freedom law, Title 54-1804, continues to serve us very well to protect the natural health care community and consumers of those services in Idaho. Please vote "No" on SB1300.
	The committee members asked numerous questions of persons testifying, both for and against SB1300, and conducted an in-depth review of the legislation. Chairman Brandt announced the committee members must convene on the Senate Floor; therefore, he would continue hearing testimonies on Wednesday, March 3, 2004.
ADJOURNED:	The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

DATE:	Wednesday, March 3, 2004
TIME:	8:00 a.m.
PLACE:	Room 437
MEMBERS PRESENT:	Chairman Brandt, Acting Vice Chairman Duncan, Senators Darrington, Ingram, Sweet, Bailey, Burkett, and Kennedy
MEMBERS ABSENT/ EXCUSED:	Senator Stegner and Vice Chairman Compton
GUESTS:	See the attached sign-in sheets
SB 1418	This legislation, SB1418 relating to the Department of Health and Welfare, was presented by the Intergovernmental and Fiscal Division Chief Bill von Tagen. This legislation is to amend the statutory language to broaden the use of "do not resuscitate orders" and DNR protocols beyond emergency medical services personnel and to clarify the Department of Health and Welfare's role and rule making authority in the section. The bill will have no fiscal impact.
MOTION:	A motion was made by Senator Sweet to send SB1418 to the Floor with a Do Pass recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Bailey, and the motion was carried by a voice vote. Senator Bunderson will be the Floor sponsor.
SB 1300	SB1300 was introduced by Senator Robert Geddes on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, and the hearing was continued today. Chairman Brandt announced he would call those persons to testify who registered on the sign-in sheets of March 2, and did not get a chance to present their testimony.
	Dr. Todd Schlapfer, from Coeur d'Alene, continued his testimony from March 2, 2004, to support SB1300. Historically, naturopathic medicine is one of the oldest continuously licensed health care professions in the U.S. Its origins can be traced back to late nineteenth-century European physicians, who wanted to re-orient medicine toward healthful living and therapies. It was brought to the U .S. and Canada in the 1890's and was adopted by physicians who established schools to educate and train physicians of natural medicine. I have a letter dated 1922 signed by Dr. Benedict Lust, one of most well known pioneers of naturopathic medicine, showing that education and training then was at least 3 years, which was customary for physicians at the time. Matriculation included medical science ( as it was known then), surgery, OB and prescriptive medicines. But the emphasis of therapeutics was on nature-based modalities, e.g., hydrotherapy, diet, exercise, homeopathy, etc. In the middle years of the twentieth century , the development of miracle drugs such as antibiotics, and the large scale funding that became available from pharmaceutical companies, combined to create a near monopoly of heath care by conventional medicine. That stage lasted until the mid-1970's and resulted in the suppression of many alternatives to the mainstream system. Over the past 25 years, the American public has become increasingly aware of the costs and consequences of relying primarily on drugs and surgery for health care. There began a large and growing demand that natural medicine alternatives be accessible in a consistent, effective way. The result has been the re-emergence of modern naturopathic medicine. This is a bill for licensure of those who have met the respected and conventional standards for physician level education and training to practice naturopathic medicine in the State of Idaho. Why do we need this legislation? I. To provide for full and legal access to what naturopathic physicians can provide. The public increasingly seeks access to naturopathic physicians, but find it untenable that they cannot receive the full benefit of naturopathic services. The current situation restricts the trade of our profession in Idaho. 2. To distinguish between physician-level practitioners of naturopathic medicine and natural health care providers that do not require licensure. 3. To create an environment of free choice and collaboration between naturopathic physicians and all variety of health care for the citizens of Idaho. 4. To create appropriate standards of education and practice for those using the title "Naturopathic Physician", or "Naturopathic Doctor." In the United States Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, you will find Naturopathic Doctor defined: It's fairly long, so I'll summarize. Diagnoses, treats, and care for patients, using a system of practice that bases treatment of physiological functions and abnormal conditions on natural laws governing the human body. . . .It goes on to describe modalities, which include botanical, nutritional, food, mechanical, minor surgery , and prescriptive medicines compatible to body processes. SB1300 is precisely consistent with this definition. In the American health care system, a doctor means someone who diagnoses and treats, and has met an established standard of education, training and board examination in order to accept this responsibility .Making a diagnosis requires a comprehensive understanding of human function, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology and disease processes, examination, etc. Unlicenced practitioners do not practice an established form of health care requiring a license. As such, practitioners not requiring a license to practice, e.g. "naturopaths", "traditional naturopaths", "natural health consultants", "herbalists", etc are not required to study the detail of human function, pathophysiology, and diagnostic evaluations for determining a diagnosis. Subsequently they agree, according to a recent publication from the Coalition for Natural Health,". ..not to diagnose and treat disease. . . ." This is consistent with not practicing as a doctor. To put oneself out as a doctor without physician-level training is completely inconsistent with responsible health care. Those practicing as unlicenced practitioners do not seek licensure or regulation. Their literature and the laws under which they are allowed to practice specifically provides, among other limitations, that they do not diagnose, do not claim or make themselves out to be doctors. There is no established standard of education and practice for unlicenced practitioners. There is an established standard of education and practice for naturopathic physicians. In order to resolve public confusion and ensure public safety , any reference to a practitioner using naturopathic modalities who does not have physician level education and training that meets an established standard to diagnose and treat, should not use any title referencing themselves as a doctor. The White House Commission on Complimentary and Alternative Medicine Policy along with the Center for the Health Care Professions at the University of California have been very clear about the fact that unlicenced practitioners are not doctors. They recommend titles, e.g., naturopath, traditional naturopath, natural health consultant, etc. Both science and the people have found that health care is best delivered when we can integrate our varied professional expertise and help each other be successful in caring for our patients. Naturopathic medicine has entered the mainstream. For the same reason MDs, dentists or nurses are licensed, licensure of qualified naturopathic physicians is necessary. I hope that you will carry this message to the people of Idaho by supporting the passage of SB'300, the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Act. Chuck Lempesis, an attorney and a representative of the Coalition of Health, testified in opposition to SB1300. He explained this issue has been ongoing for years. He wants to encourage natural health care in Idaho. He requested the committee to not adopt SB1300.
	Dennis Davis, ND, briefly testified to support SB1300.
	Gay Doman, briefly testified in opposition to SB1300.
	Ken McClure, an attorney for the Idaho Medical Association (IMA), testified the IMA does not want to get involved in the scope of practice and does not see SB1300 as affecting public health. The IMA does not support or oppose SB1300.
	Senator Geddes explained SB1300 does not put anyone out of business. He believes SB1300 is good legislation.
	Larry Benton, a representative of the Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, explained that a lot of effort and months of time was involved to develop SB1300. This legislation does not restrict persons from conducting their business, but that it does restricts the use of the term "doctor." He presented an eight (8) page review of SB1300 with details relating to specific areas of change. (See Attachment #1). He also presented a Bastyr University report relating to the Naturopathic Medicine Program of 2003-2004. (See Attachment #2) Mr. Benton requested the committee to send SB1300, to the amending order. A letter, dated February 18, 2004, from the Bingham County Commissioners to Senator Geddes, was submitted. The letter stated, as follows: We, the Bingham County Commissioners, applaud your introduction and encourage your support of SB1300. This legislation will provide for the health and safety of the citizens of Idaho who seek health care from qualified naturopathic physicians. As you may be aware, problems with unqualified practitioners led the Bingham County Commissioners to adopt Bingham County Ordinance 98-10. This Ordinance assures Bingham County citizens that practitioners are, in fact, qualified naturopathic physicians. Please find the Ordinance attached for your reference. In as much as the legislation will provide the same assurance to the citizens of Idaho statewide, and upon passage of SB1300, the County will sunset Ordinance 98-10, which will then be replaced by the higher standards of this bill.
	Also submitted was a letter, dated September 10, 2003, from Rod Page, the Secretary of Education in Washington D.C., addressed to Robert Lofft, the executive director of the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education in Eugene, Oregon. The letter reported, as follows: At its June 9-10, 2003 meeting, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity recommended that I grant initial recognition for a period of two years to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency. This recommendation was made under Sections 114 and 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, and pursuant to relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. I concur with the recommendation of the National Advisory Committee. I am satisfied that accreditation by the Council is a required element in enabling students and graduates of the programs the agency accredits or pre-accredits to participate in Federal programs administered by other Federal agencies. These other Federal programs include the Academic Research Enhancement Awards and the Loan Repayment Program administered by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary Alternative Medicine. Accordingly, For a period of two years from the date of this letter, I grant initial recognition to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency for 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.) Degree. Please convey my best wishes to the members of the Council. I appreciate their continuing efforts to improve the quality of postsecondary education in the United States.
	A letter, dated February 4, 2004, from Don Warren, B.SC.,N.D., to all Representatives and Senators of the Idaho State Legislature, relating to the confirmation of USDE Recognition Faculty Credentials of N.D. Programs, was submitted and reads as follows: At the June 9-10, 2003 meeting, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) recommended that the USDE grant initial recognition for a period of two years to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education as a national accrediting agency. The Council will apply for continued recognition in the spring of 2005. The CNME will continue to remain in full compliance with USDE regulations and so anticipate this recognition being renewed. It is also important to note that each of the programs that the CNME accredits in the U.S. are regionally accredited or pre-accredited by recognized regional accreditors. The CNME recognizes that the quality and effectiveness of a naturopathic medicine program in fulfilling its mission and objectives depend largely on the competence and performance of its faculty. The first standard in Section IV, p.37, of the Handbook of Accreditation for Naturopathic Medicine Programs requires that: Members of the faculty are appropriately qualified by education and experience for their teaching positions in the naturopathic medicine program. Advance or professional degrees, and other evidence of competence to teach at the doctoral level in a subject area are required. A copy of the CNME's Handbook of Accreditation may be obtained by sending a request to cnme@bellsouth.net It is also available electronically in pdf format.
	The committee members and the chairman conducted a second lengthy review of SB1300, and questioned and explored many areas of concerns.
MOTION:	A motion was made by Senator Bailey to send SB1300 to the 14th Order. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. Discussion: Term of "doctor" implies a high degree of education; x-rays; treatments of superficial injuries; prescribed drugs and drug therapy and how they relate to people's health; this type legislation should not be formulated by the Senate on the amending order; Section 6, page 4, exemptions be removed from the bill. Further questions were asked and considered.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION:	A substitute motion was made by Senator Burkett to Hold SB1300 in Committee until next year. The motion was seconded by Senator Darrington. A roll call vote was requested by Chairman Brandt. Senators Burkett, Sweet, Darrington and Duncan voted AYE. Senators Kennedy, Bailey, Ingram, and Brandt voted NAY. Senator Stegner was absent and excused. The substitute motion failed with a vote of 4 Ayes, 4 Nays, 1 absent.
ORIGINAL MOTION:	A roll call vote was taken on the original motion made by Senator Bailey and seconded by Senator Kennedy to send SB1300 to the Amending Order. Senators Kennedy, Bailey, Ingram, and Brandt voted Aye. Senators Burkett, Sweet, Darrington, and Duncan voted Nay. Senator Stegner was absent and excused. The original motion failed with a vote of 4 Ayes, 4 Nays, 1 absent.

Jared Zeff's letter to the Journal of Naturopathy (1997)

TO THE EDITOR:
I just returned from a two hour session with a friend and colleague at the University of Vermont Medical School. Helen Longevin, MD, is an endocrinologist who is also trained in acupuncture and is an active proponent of complementary medicine. In fact, her job at UVM is in researching acupuncture. She was given the task recently of reviewing journals for possible inclusion in UVM’s medical library holdings. Proudly, I provided her with the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine. Today she gave me interesting feedback which I want to share. I offer it in respect and with the sole intention of improving our profession and advancing our relationship with the public and with the conventional medical community.
Dr. Longevin has a great deal of experience reviewing articles for peer-reviewed journals; specifically she did this during her fellowship at John Hopkins Medical Center for JAMA. Today she walked me step by step through the process of what makes a good peer-reviewed journal, and what makes a good article.
According to Dr. Longevin, a good article, including theoretical ones, need to be well supported, documented and easy to understand for physicians unfamiliar with the topic presented. Even for theoretical articles, theories need to be clearly stated as such and supported with data. In fact, every sentence in a reputable journal needs to be either 1) common knowledge by the audience, which is presumed to be physicians, not necessarily with expertise in the topic; 2) thoroughly explained or elemental science such as biochemical pathways; or 3) documented by citations. Citations, in turn, should be from recent, available journals (i.e., in English and reputable). When these are not available, foreign articles or textbooks may be cited, although this weakens the article. When no data is available (and the writer must have exhaustively researched this in order to make such a statement) this must be stated.
Dr. Longevin did not recommend our journal for inclusion in the library’s holdings. She used several examples from Dr. Jared Zeff’s recent article, “The process of healing: A unifying theory of naturopathic medicine” (Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 1997; 7(1):122-5), in explaining her evaluation.
She specifically pointed out the paragraphs on toxemia as problematic. First, the concept is not common knowledge by all physician readers, and its not describing indisputable elemental science. Therefore, it needs to be well-supported with citations. She walked me through every sentence in those paragraphs, and said that all of them needed to be documented. For example: “These products (toxins) are absorbed into the blood (needs citation or proof), become a cause of tissue irritation (again, needs a citation-what tissues? how? has it been measured?) and thereby the physical basis of most chronic inflammation (needs support), which ultimately will increase one’s susceptibility to acute disease (lots of proof needed here)” (page 124).
Even if this is theory, apparently there needs to be significant evidence supporting it. Otherwise, medical people just toss out the information, even if it is accurate. I happen to believe and use in practice with my patients the part about the effect of adrenal activity on digestion. But in a theoretical article, every sentence needs to be backed-up – otherwise we are in a sense making unsubstantiated claims.
It’s a laborious process, Dr. Longevin admitted, but if we’re going to hold up under scrutiny that we’re definitely going to face from the medical profession, we can’t take short cuts. She assured me, and I believe this, that we will only strengthen our profession by applying more rigorous standards to our research and our writing.
I think we’re in a position now with our profession to undergo some critical review. If we don’t, THEY will. I’m fortunate that I know some people deeply steeped in the medical research model here that are actually on our side, and want to train us in how to use their language-especially since we’ve stepped into the world of peer-reviewed journals they invented and are so good at creating. Despite the narrow focus of this letter I would like to say I enormously appreciate Dr. Zeff’s contribution and his attempts to bring unity into our field.

Lorilee Schoenbeck, ND
Champlain Center for Natural Medicine
2 Harbor Rd.
Shelburne, VT 05482
802-985-8250

TO THE EDITOR:
Dr. Schoenbeck’s sincere and thoughtful letter asks one of the most significant questions facing our profession: what is a naturopathic physician? Dr. Longevin’s observations regarding my article contains some criticisms and advice, though there is a significant difference in our points of view. But they point to a major problem in naturopathic medicine.
I hold an assumption which may no longer be valid – that naturopathic medicine is a separate and distinct branch of the healing arts, and as such has a body of knowledge separate and distinct from other branches of these arts. I practice neither complementary nor alternative medicine. I am not a holistic physician. I am a naturopathic physician. A naturopathic physician is a defined entity. As a separate and distinct branch of healing, we have separate and distinct assumptions, and a separate and distinct body of knowledge. We share a body of knowledge with other healing arts, such as the basic medical sciences. But, we are not the same. We are different. The most obvious difference is our understanding of suppression, either shared nor respected by standard medical doctors. Suppression is discussed in the AANP “Unifying Definition of Naturopathic Medicine” (1989) as harmful. We understand that it violates the process of healing, but may occasionally be necessary to save life. We understand that suppression of acute disease is a significant cause of chronic disease. Medical doctors, on the other hand, base much of their work on suppression - suppression of inflammation, fever, infection, etc. – and seek more and more powerful ways to suppress the symptomatic expression of disease, and see successful suppression as cure. We do not, or at least I do not. I see it as a significant harm, and the major iatrogenic cause of illness in our society.
Another difference is the recognition of toxemia. Although the concept of toxemia is not a part of the body of knowledge presented in conventional medical schools, as evidenced by Dr. Longevin’s comments, all first year naturopathic students are presented with this concept. Some of the presentation relies upon outdated materials, such as the naturopathic texts of 75 and 100 years ago – Lindlahr, Tilden, and so forth. But in my first year philosophy course, along with these, I recommend reading Drasar and Hill’s Human Intestinal Flora (1974), and demonstrate some of the biochemical pathways of the generation of metabolic toxins in the gut through dysbiotic bacterial action upon poorly digested food. This can be measured via such methods as urinary indican and urinary phenol tests, comprehensive stool analysis, etc. We teach the testable assumption that toxemia is a cause of disease.
I assume that toxemia should be “common knowledge of the audience,” which I presume to be naturopathic physicians. Clearly, this concept is not common knowledge of Dr. Longevin or her medical colleagues. Nor would I expect it to be. This concept, and the science behind it, is taught at naturopathic medical schools. The biochemistry toxemia, published in the conventional literature, is ignored by standard American medical science. It is ignored not because the science is not there, but because it does not fit the dogma of modern American medicine. This information is neither new nor “unscientific”. It has recently been recognized as a mechanism in the generation of gut cancer even in the Merck Manual (16th edition), though the model was clearly elaborated 20 years ago.
I do not pretend that these concepts are really common knowledge among our colleagues, because I see in practice that they are not, and for me this is the real issue. They are rarely if ever discussed in our college clinics. I see that many of my colleagues have abandoned what I consider the fundamentals of naturopathic medicine for the acceptability of conventional medical assumptions and relationships.
I wrote my article primarily because I wanted to present to my colleagues what I considered a significant observation about the working of our medicine. This is expressed in what I called “the hierarchy of therapeutics,” and what is called “the therapeutic order” at Bastyr University. There is an order to the process of healing, which requires certain things to be done before others to maximize the effectiveness of the therapeutics. It is this order of application, which is most often violated in practice. The current therapeutic goal in naturopathic medicine often seems to be to make the correct diagnosis, in standard medical terms, and treat with the correct set of supplements, or the correct homeopathic remedy or botanical tincture, or refer correctly if the patient is really ill, but ignore the vis medicatrix naturae and how it functions. This is tragic, in my opinion, because we could all be curing the difficult cases rather than referring them for suppressive treatment. Instead, our students are taught that this basic naturopathic medicine is not possible, not acceptable, not valid, and not scientific.
The assumptions of “scientific” and “unscientific,” also require some examination. The scientific method is simple, and contains four elements: the statement of a problem, the formulation of a testable hypothesis, the testing of the hypothesis, and the observations or conclusions derived from the testing. For the most part, journals are the common forum for the presentation of such observations. What I presented was a theory, based upon my observations and tested in my practice for nearly 20 years. I presented it as a model of process, and ended my article with the statement that I thought this was testable. My concern is not to rebut Dr. Longevin’s criticism. I am concerned, though, about this profession and its future. I believe that we are in a process of abandoning our foundational truths for the sake of compatibility with standard medicine, insurance payers, and HMO’s. If we do so, we lose the power and richness of our medicine. It was to my colleagues that I wrote an article regarding the workings of our medicine, to stimulate thought and criticism of the ideas I presented. I put forth what I think of as a unifying theory of how our medicine works, which organizes our therapeutics upon the natural processes of healing. I wrote it not to convince medical doctors that we are valid or scientific, but to inform my colleagues and stimulate dialogue around the subject. My article was for naturopathic physicians, who, it seems to me, are increasingly taught that we are a kind of sub-branch of conventional medicine, “complementary,” secondary and supportive.
I recently received a letter from a third year student at National College who was concerned that she was being instructed to treat “serious infections,” such as strep, with antibiotics. Many of us have demonstrated that we can effectively and efficiently treat strep without the suppressive effect of antibiotics, by eliminating the susceptibility in the host and stimulating the immune function. But our students are being taught to see themselves as somehow a kind of “junior” medical doctor, someone who uses gentle treatments in minor illness, but who must transfer seriously ill patients to the “real” doctors, the MD’s; they are becoming naturopathic physicians who don’t know how to treat infections without antibiotics. Ironically, one of the real values we have to offer the world is that we know how to successfully treat antibiotic-resistant infections.
Let me cite the case of an eight-year-old girl whose mother brought her in with chronic strep infections. She had been off and on antibiotics for several years, and was about to go on a maintenance antibiotic due to these infections. Coincidentally, she had retinitis pigmentosa. I recommended specific dietary changes, and instituted hydrotherapy treatments. The chronic strep ceased: she did not need antibiotics. And her eyes began to improve. She could see at night again. I have followed her case for a year and a half, and her eyes function normally now. My explanation involves the reduction of toxemia through improved digestive efficiency. I cannot prove that toxemia had anything to do with the retinitis pigmentosa, though this is testable. But this is the second case of RP I have seen, and both responded with cessation of the degeneration and continuing improvement, following the application of this basic naturopathic approach.
It is this example that I find my greatest concern for our profession. I see my younger colleagues abandoning our historical methodology for that which is “approved” by conventional science. I see some of our institutional instructors teaching that we can not treat strep except with antibiotics, or cancer except by conventional methods, and that we must refer “serious” cases. The girl with retinits pigmentosa has no hope. She is discarded, sacrificed on the altar of acceptability, so we can appear credible to medical doctors. The truth is that our methodologies are extremely effective and powerful, if our doctors know how to use them. Unfortunately, many do not, they are not well taught, some of our teachers do not believe in them, and the result is obvious.
I am not writing for medical doctors. We fundamentally differ in our underlying assumptions about health and disease, and I have never seen a medical doctor change her mind about our methods and theories by any citation of science. The science was available in the 1950’s regarding toxemia, well established in the 1970’s, and even in the Merck Manual in the 1990’s (albeit in a limited way). It is ignored not because it is unscientific, but because it does not fit the dogma of modern, American medicine. My concern in writing my article was to add a little to help preserve and strengthen this profession, to stimulate thought and maybe even research. I do not give a damn whether the “scientific” medical community agrees with our methods or not. My concern is for the sick people who come into my office, most of them walking away from the failures of standard “scientific” medicine. I am concerned about the tendency I am increasingly seeing in this profession to abandon our traditions because they are not acceptable to Dr. Longevin.

Sincerely,

Jared L. Zeff, ND

Minnesota Statute 147E text posted online

Statute 147E registers naturopathic doctors in Minnesota effective July 1, 2009.
Section 12 mandates a work group for these purposes:
Sec. 12. NATUROPATHY WORK GROUP.
Subdivision 1. Work group. By September 1, 2008, the commissioner of health
shall convene a work group to develop recommendations and proposed legislation, as
necessary, on regulating naturopathic practitioners who are practicing as naturopathic
medical doctors or physicians and who have postgraduate degrees in naturopathic
medicine. The recommendations must ensure the continued practice of traditional
naturopathy by traditional naturopaths under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 146A. The
recommendations shall include the following issues:
(1) the appropriate level of regulation for practitioners with a postgraduate degree
in naturopathic medicine;
(2) the definitions to be used for the recommended regulatory scheme to ensure the
distinction between the practice of naturopathic medicine and the practice of traditional
naturopathy;
(3) the level of education and training, including appropriate credentialing of
educational programs for the postgraduate degree level of practice;
(4) the scope of practice for naturopathic practitioners with a postgraduate degree in
naturopathic medicine that would be exclusive to these practitioners and would reflect
the level of education and training. The scope of practice must acknowledge and ensure
the continued practice of all complementary and alternative health practices, including
naturopathy, currently practiced under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 146A;
(5) the appropriate regulatory authority, including the possible establishment of a
new regulatory board; and
(6) any other regulatory requirements for naturopathic medicine the work group
deems necessary.

Primum Non Nocere: North Carolina naturopathic doctors appeal to the state Medical Board for support

The motto of the North Carolina Medical Board is Primum non nocere, "Firtst do no harm", also the first principle of naturopathic medicine.

Now, the proponents of the North Carolina naturopathic doctor regulation bill appeal to the N.C. Medical Board for support:

"Naturopathic physicians and several medical doctors testified before a special committee of the Medical Board in support of the bill, which would set up a separate licensing board for the practice of naturopathic medicine, but only for people like Delaney who have been formally trained. Right now, there are only 22 naturopathic physicians in the state that would qualify.
The only opposition came from the N.C. Medical Society, which questioned whether that small a number of practitioners justifies a separate licensing board.
“We cannot support the bill because in our view, based on our experience over the years, the bill just comes up short,” said Steve Keene, general counsel for the Medical Society.Keene said the Medical Society is willing to work with naturopathic physicians to address the bill’s shortcomings. But that would mean one more delay for this long-sought-after legislation. And it opens the door to opponents in the alternative medicine community who are opposed to regulation."

This hearing is a pre-condition by the NC lawmakers to consider the licensure bill:

"Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, is sponsoring a bill in the General Assembly that would license naturopathic doctors, but lawmakers will consider it only if the medical board and the North Carolina Medical Society consider licensure for naturopaths and provide an official opinion as to whether it is a legitimate form of medical treatment."

From the Governor's Bill Log

Legislation for 2008
Chapter 348

House 1724
File

Senate (1520)
File

Description Naturopathic doctor registration provided, advisory council established, and money appropriated.

Presented 5/19/08

Signed 5/23/08

1962 Milton Friedman Essay

Medical Licensure
by Milton Friedman

The medical profession is one in which practice of the profession has for a long time been restricted to people with licenses. Offhand, the question, "Ought we to let incompetent physicians practice?" seems to admit of only a negative answer. But I want to urge that second thought may give pause.

In the first place, licensure is the key to the control that the medical profession can exercise over the number of physicians. To understand why this is so requires some discussion of the structure of the medical profession. The American Medical Association is perhaps the strongest trade union in the United States. The essence of the power of a trade union is its power to restrict the number who may engage in a particular occupation. This restriction may be exercised indirectly by being able to enforce a wage rate higher than would otherwise prevail. If such a wage rate can be enforced, it will reduce the number of people who can get jobs and thus indirectly the number of people pursuing the occupation. This technique of restriction has disadvantages. There is always a dissatisfied fringe of people who are trying to get into the occupation. A trade union is much better off it can limit directly the number of people who enter the occupation-who ever try to get jobs in it. The disgruntled and dissatisfied are excluded at the outset, and the union does not have to worry about them.

The American Medical Association is in this position. It is a trade union that can limit the number of people who can enter. How can it do this? The essential control is at the stage of admission to medical school. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the American Medical Association approves medical schools. In order for a medical school to get and stay on its list of approved schools it has to meet the standards of the Council. The power of the Council has been demonstrated at various times when there has been pressure to reduce numbers. For example, in the 1930's during the depression, the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals wrote a letter to the various medical schools saying the medical schools were admitting more students than could be given the proper kind of training. In the next year or two, every school reduced the number it was admitting, giving very strong presumptive evidence that the recommendation had some effect. . . .

Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission. . . .

In the first place, does [licensure] really raise standards of competence? It is by no means clear that it does raise the standards of competence in the actual practice of the profession for several reasons. In the first place, whenever you establish a block to entry into any field, you establish an incentive to find ways of getting around it, and of course medicine is no exception. The rise of the professions of osteopathy and of chiropractic is not unrelated to the restriction of entry into medicine. On the contrary, each of these represented, to some extent, an attempt to find a way around restriction of entry. Each of these, in turn, is proceeding to get itself licensed, and to impose restrictions. The effect is to create different levels and kinds of practice, to distinguish between what is called medical practice and substitutes such as osteopathy, chiropractic, faith healing and so on. These alternatives may well be of lower quality than medical practice would have been without the restrictions on entry into medicine.

More generally, if the number of physicians is less than it otherwise would be, and if they are fully occupied, as they generally are, this means that there is a smaller total of medical practice by trained physicians-fewer medical man-hours of practice, as it were. The alternative is untrained practice by somebody; it may and in part must be by people who have no professional qualifications at all. Moreover, the situation is much more extreme. If "medical practice" is to be limited to licensed practitioners, it is necessary to define what medical practice is, and featherbedding is not something that is restricted to the railroads. Under the interpretation of the statutes forbidding unauthorized practice of medicine, many things are restricted to licensed physicians that could perfectly well be done by technicians, and other skilled people who do not have a Cadillac medical training. I am not enough of a technician to list the examples at all fully. I only know that those who have looked into the question say that the tendency is to include in "medical practice" a wider and wider range of activities that might well be done by others. The result is to reduce drastically the amount of medical care. The relevant average quality of medical care, if one can at all conceive of the concept, cannot be obtained by simply averaging the quality of care that is given; that would be like judging the effectiveness of a medical treatment by considering only the survivors; one must also allow for the fact that the restrictions reduce the amount of care. The result may well be that the average level of competence in a meaningful sense has been reduced by the restrictions.

Even these comments do not go far enough, because they consider the situation at a point in time and do not allow for changes over time. Advances in any science or field often result from the work of one out of a large number of crackpots and quacks and people who have no standing in the profession. In the medical profession, under present circumstances, it is very difficult to engage in research or experimentation unless you are a member of the profession. If you are a member of the profession and want to stay in good standing in the profession, you are seriously limited in the kind of experimentation you can do. A "faith healer" may be just a quack who is imposing himself on credulous patients, but maybe one in a thousand or in many thousands will produce an important improvement in medicine. There are many different routes to knowledge and learning and the effect to restricting the practice of what is called medicine and defining it as we tend to do to a particular group, who in the main have to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy, is certain to reduce the amount of experimentation that goes on and hence to reduce the rate of growth of knowledge in the area. What is true for the content of medicine is true also for its organization, as has already been suggested. I shall expand further on this point below.

There is still another way in which licensure, and the associated monopoly in the practice of medicine, tend to render standards of practice low. I have already suggested that it renders the average quality of practice low by reducing the number of physicians, by reducing the aggregate number of hours available from trained physicians for more rather than less important tasks, and by reducing the incentive for research and development. It renders it low also by making it much more difficult for private individuals to collect from physicians for malpractice. One of the protections of the individual citizen against incompetence is protection against fraud and the ability to bring suit in the court against malpractice. Some suits are brought, and physicians complain a great deal about how much they have to pay for malpractice insurance. Yet suits for malpractice are fewer and less successful than they would be were it not for the watchful eye of the medical association. It is not easy to get a physician to testify against a fellow physician when he faces the sanction of being denied the right to practice in an "approved" hospital. The testimony generally has to come from members of panels set up by medical associations themselves, always, of course, in the alleged interest of the patients.

When these effects are taken into account, I am myself persuaded that licensure has reduced both the quantity and quality of medical practice; that is has reduced the opportunities available to people who would like to be physicians, forcing them to pursue occupations they regard as less attractive; that it has forced the public to pay more for less satisfactory medical service, and that it has retarded technological development both in medicine itself and in the organization of medical practice. I conclude that licensure should be eliminated as a requirement for the practice of medicine.

When all this is said, many a reader, I suspect, like many a person with whom I have discussed these issues, will say, "But still, how else would I get any evidence on the quality of a physician. Granted all that you say about costs, is not licensure the only way of providing the public with some assurance of at least minimum quality?" The answer is partly that people do not now choose physicians by picking names at random from a list of licensed physicians; partly, that a man's ability to pass an examination twenty or thirty years earlier is hardly assurance of quality now; hence, licensure is not now the main or even a major source of assurance of at least minimum quality. But the major answer is very different. It is that the question itself reveals the tyranny of the status quo and the poverty of our imagination in fields in which we are laymen, and even in those in which we have some competence, by comparison with the fertility of the market. . . .

The impossibility of any individual or small group conceiving of all the possibilities, let alone evaluating their merits, is the great argument against central governmental planning and against arrangements such as professional monopolies that limit the possibilities of experimentation. On the other side, the great argument for the market is its tolerance of diversity; its ability to utilize a wide range of special knowledge and capacity. It renders special groups impotent to prevent experimentation and permits the customers and not the producers to decide what will serve the customers best.

Professor Friedman, the winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economic Science, is Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. This is an excerpt from his book Capitalism and Freedom , published in 1962 by The University of Chicago Press. © 1962 by The University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by

2005 MMA (Minnesota Medical Association) Report lists objections to licensing naturopathic medicine

Naturopathic Physician Licensing Proposal
The committee considered a proposal to establish licensure for naturopathic physicians. Efforts
by naturopaths to obtain state licensure date back to at least 1997. At that time, legislation was
introduced, but it failed to pass because of opposition primarily from the “lay naturopath”
community, many of whom would have been restricted from practice due to the legislation’s
education and training standards. In 2000, renewed interest in establishing some level of state
oversight of “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) led to the passage of the
complementary and alternative health care practices act (M.S. § 146A).
The proposed legislation would charge the Board of Medical Practice (BMP) with licensing
responsibilities for “naturopathic physicians.” A “naturopathic physician” (abbreviated as either
ND or NMD) would be defined as one who is authorized and licensed to practice naturopathic
medicine, which is defined as follows:
“A system of primary health care practiced by naturopathic physicians for the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of human health conditions, injuries, and diseases that uses education,
lifestyle counseling, nutrition, naturopathic obstetrics, naturopathic physical medicine, natural
derived medicines, minor surgery, and pharmaceutical agents.” (Section 1 of 147E.01 – draft
legislation).
Committee members reviewed the specifics of the legislation and the proposed scope of practice
under the legislation, and discussed the proposal with representatives from the naturopathic
community.
The committee acknowledged that licensure and its concomitant educational and training
standards might offer some protection to the public by distinguishing more formally trained
naturopaths from “lay” or untrained naturopaths. Licensure, however, also carries with it
perceived state “endorsement” of the practice. The significant expansion in the scope of practice
for licensed naturopaths was a noted and significant concern.
Ultimately, the committee concluded (and the Board agreed) that the MMA should oppose the
naturopathic licensure proposal because of five (5) primary concerns:
1. The proposed scope of practice for licensed naturopaths is a significant expansion and an
infringement on many of the central components of the practice of medicine.
2. The committee failed to see how the licensure proposal would protect the public.
3. Citing increased pressure on physicians to deliver reliable care and reduce variation in
practice, committee members were disappointed to hear representatives from the Minnesota
Association of Naturopathic Physicians assert the unique and individualized nature of
naturopathy and, essentially, to dismiss suggestions for standardization.
4. The committee found the proposed use of the term “naturopathic physician” and the
abbreviation “ND or NMD” to be both inappropriate and confusing to the public.
5. Noting concerns with rising health care costs and the push for greater “evidence-based”
health care, the committee was concerned that licensure (and the admitted desire for thirdparty
reimbursement) would put pressure on limited health care dollars at the possible
expense of more critical health care services.

May 17 2008 5th Engrossment HF1724 text

Click on the post title, here, or here

I hope everyone has had enough of this for now and will take a break

Thank you!

It's been said

that the lobbying team that helped the naturopathic doctors to pass their bill and who worked so incredibly hard are "Fantastic" and "Best Ever".
They deserve everyone's respect ( all sides ) and tremendous gratitude from the naturopathic doctors.
I hope everyone feels relieved that this incredibly taxing struggle is over and done with, and everyone works together to do what is best for all Minnesotans, which I hope what the mandated work group achieves.
The bill has gone through 12 committee hearings, which is exceedingly rare.
Thank you!

And the good news is, HF 1724 passes!

Naturopathic Doctors will be registered in Minnesota effective July 1, 2009.
Senator Torres Ray introduced amendment 850, changing the composition of the workgroup
to include 3 members each from the MNANP and the MNHLRP, and setting the registration
effective date to the original July 1, 2008. This passed.
Senator B. Dille introduced the amendment 852, pushing the effective date forward to July 1, 2009. This amendment passed as well.

Senator Torres Ray did a wonderful job on the Senate floor.
Senator Berglin also defended registration of naturopaths.

The opposition did a great job fighting on behalf of well, I am not sure
exactly who, they are a shady bunch. The workgroup will give them a chance to come out
of the shadows and show everyone who they are.
The opposing Senators were organized and executed well.
They were Senators Robling, Dille, Fischbach, (someone else?), and Vickerman.
As much as I hated what they were trying to accomplish, it was great political theater.
Thank you Senator Torres Ray for standing up to their onslaught and holding your ground.
You were great!

Low points of May 13 Senate Finance Amendment

Thank you Senator Torres Ray for providing outstanding leadership during the Full Senate Vote.
Sen. Torres Ray introduced Amendment 850 (text not available at the moment)
amending the May 13 Senate finance committee amendment:

Here are the low points of the May 13 massacre:
the bill be amended as follows:
Page 4, line 33, delete "N.D.,"
"Sec. 11. NATUROPATHY WORK GROUP.
Subdivision 1. Work group. By September 1, 2008, the commissioner of health shall convene
a work group to develop recommendations and proposed legislation, as necessary, on regulating
naturopathic practitioners who are practicing as naturopathic medical doctors or physicians and
who have postgraduate degrees in naturopathic medicine. The recommendations must ensure the continued practice of traditional naturopathy by traditional naturopaths under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 146A. The recommendations shall include the following issues:
(1) the appropriate level of regulation for practitioners with postgraduate degree in naturopathic
medicine;
(2) the definitions to be used for the recommended regulatory scheme to ensure the distinction
between the practice of naturopathic medicine and the practice of traditional naturopathy;
(3) the level of education and training, including appropriate credentialing of educational
programs for the postgraduate degree level of practice;
(4) the scope of practice for naturopathic practitioners with postgraduate degrees in naturopathic medicine that would be exclusive to these practitioners and would reflect the level of education and training. The scope of practice must acknowledge and ensure the continued practice of all complementary and alternative health practices, including naturopathy, currently practiced under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 146A;
(5) the appropriate regulatory authority, including the possible establishment of a new regulatory board; and
(6) any other regulatory requirements for naturopathic medicine the work group deems
necessary.
Subd. 2. Membership and operation of working group. (a) The work group shall consist of
the following members:
(1) twomembers appointed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians,Minnesota chapter;
(2) two members appointed by the Coalition for Natural Health, Minnesota chapter;
(3) one member appointed by the American Naturopathic Medical Association, Minnesota chapter;
(4) one member appointed by the Minnesota Homeopathic Association;
(5) one member appointed by the Acupuncture Association of Minnesota;
(6) one member appointed by the Minnesota Chiropractic Association;
(7) one member appointed by the Minnesota Medical Association who is a practicing physician
trained in natural healing methods;
(8) one member appointed by the Office of Complementary and Alternative Medicine who is practicing as a traditional naturopath; and
(9) onememberwho is a consumer of naturopathic treatment appointed by theMinnesotaNatural Health Legal Reform project.
...
The work group shall
complete its recommendations by December 15, 2008, and the commissioner shall submit a report containing the work group's recommendations and proposed legislation to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over health care by January 15, 2009.
Page 12, line 17, delete "11" and insert "12" and delete "2008" and insert "2009"

Let's tally these workgroup's composition. Assuming the representatives from the homeopaths, acupuncturists, chiropractors, and medical doctors are not biased, this amendment stacks
the workgroup 5 to 2 with the opponents of regulating naturopathic doctors.
This is what MNHLRP call 'FAIR' and 'this is a good compromise'.

Open Letter

Dear Minnesotan,
HF1724 ,supported by the naturopathic doctors in Minnesota, has successfully passed the House on May 7, 2008 and is ready for its third reading on the Senate floor.
The measure is very moderate and would allow qualified naturopathic doctors to perform simple physical exams and order medical lab tests, and to protect titles 'Doctor of Naturopathy' ,'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine', and their abbreviations, 'N.D.' and 'N.M.D.', just as Minnesota Statute 147.081 reserves titles 'medical doctor', and 'M.D' for the individuals who met certain educational and testing requirements.
The May 13 amendment ,introduced in the Senate finance committee, removes 'N.D.' from the protected titles.
This is equivalent to reserving title 'medical doctor' to the graduates of the University of Minnesota Medical School, but allowing anybody to identify themselves as John Doe, M.D., without any restrictions whatsoever.
This 'N.D.' amendment is in the interests of a special interest group, the unaccredited diploma mills and the individuals who scam the public with fake credentials.
The U.S. Senate had examined "Bogus Degrees" at the hearings before the committee on governmental affairs on May 11 and 12, 2004.
Unscrupulous individuals do use bogus naturopathic medical degrees to gain public trust. This does result in tragedy.
Recent Seattle Times special report looks at such occurrences, and the shadowy bogus credentials industry.
Naturopathic doctors supporting HF1724 are all graduates of 4-year post-graduate naturopathic medical schools. All of their schools are accredited by CNME, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, the sole body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the accrediting agency for professional programs leading to Naturopathic Doctor and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees, the N.D. and N.M.D., just as the U.S. Department of Education recognizes LCME, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, as the sole agency accrediting programs leading to M.D. degree.
On the other hand, the bogus schools producing fake credentials are recognized as fakes by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation . Various states, Michigan in this example, use the CHEA diploma mill list for the purpose of
"...a listing of colleges and universities which are not currently accredited by an accrediting
body of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (www.chea.org). Degrees from these
institutions will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational
requirements indicated on job specifications. Please note that this list is not all inclusive;
unaccredited schools will be added as we become aware of them.", to verify one's educational credentials.
On this list, you will find CCNH of Birmingham, Alabama, "the Clayton College of Natural Health – Alabama, page 5, Revised 4/23/2008".
Stephen Barrett, M.D. details CCNH's rich history under rubric "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" .
You will NOT find CCNH on the list of the accredited colleges in Alabama, published by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
CCNH refers to its school of naturopathy as "NOn-Traditionally accredited" and claims to have granted over 10,000 naturopathy degrees and certificates.
There are over 100 unaccredited diploma mills of this sort in the United States, according to the Seattle Times report.
Compare this with accredited naturopathic medical schools that have to provide classrooms, instructors, labs, libraries, etc.... All of them combined only graduate several hundred naturopathic doctors each year.
The diploma mill interests are behind the efforts to deny naturopathic doctors the opportunity to practice their profession and the fair use of the credentials they earned the old fashioned way -- through hard work.
Please support legitimate naturopathic doctors, the real N.D.s.

C.C.

Nature's Sunshine Products under federal investigation

Just in.

NSP, a Utah MLM company, which to this day publishes on its corporate web servers form letters, written by the MNHLRP's lobbyist Karen Studders, opposing naturopathic doctors registration in Minnesota; whose "Health Freedom" front, the Sunshine Health Freedom Foundation, has been actively involved in the MNHLRP's inflammatory disinformation campaign, issuing so-called "alerts", is being investigated by the Department of Justice and the SEC.
It seems that NSP has not been filing the required company paperwork for the past 3 years.
Filing the paperwork for the the MNHLRP must be a higher priority than taking care of their own accounting.

But who cares? It's only money.
Probably nothing to worry about, as long as you remember to "Be Happy".

What else opposes regulating naturopathy besides the bogus diploma mills and the MLMs? Please read on.

It's Miracle Devices.
Search online for 'miracle devices' and you'll get this Seattle Times investigative report.
Get to know William Nelson. you might find him as fascinating as I did.
Not only was he the NASA scientist who took the fated 'Houston, we have a problem" call from the Apollo 13 astronauts and saved their lives by quickly performing math calculations, he now stars in his own movies.
If his educational credentials do not convince you of his brilliance, his
singing surely will. It must be a balm for both minds and hearts of the politicos who took up opposing regulating naturopathic doctors.
Online search shows 'traditional'(i.e. bogus diploma) NDs in Minnesota advertising the FDA banned devices profiled in the report, the very same individuals who vehemently oppose regulating naturopathic doctors.
The FDA and the U.S. Congress Energy and Commerce subcommittee have launched dual investigations into bogus energy medicine devices. According to a newspaper article, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee "is "horrified" that thousands of dubious and dangerous devices have slipped into the U.S. health-care system, and that hundreds of unlicensed health-care operatives are blatantly marketing illegal treatments. He hopes to broaden the congressional hearings to explore why the FDA and state regulators failed to confiscate or warn the public about another fraudulent and illegal device".
Part 3 of the Seattle Times report details bogus naturopathic doctor degree mills and accreditation boards.

Support Naturopathic Doctors and SF1520! 3 reasons the "workgroup" proposal from the MNHLRP is groundless.

Reason 1. This is only a ploy to kill SF1520.
The legislators have listened to every sides' arguments, and suffered from a barrage of questions from the citizens who were incited by the MNHLRP's deliberate misinformation campaign.
The Minnesota House voted 90-42 in support of the bill.
The 'workgroup' proposal is the MNHLRP's latest trick to kill SF1520.

Reason 2. The State of Minnesota has already reviewed prior legislation to
regulate naturopathic doctors. The Case Studies of Occupational
Regulation (see text below) examined the progress of legislation proposed in
1987 and 1997.
In 1987, the legislation stalled because it was thought that the 5 naturopathic
doctors then residing in Minnesota would not be able to support an independent
Board. Since then, the naturopathic doctors have sought to work under the Board
of Medical Practice, thus eliminating the core objection in 1987.
In 1997, when the legislation failed again, the most vocal opposition came from unlicensed practitioners who objected to proposed title protection for 'naturopath'.
In 2008, the naturopathic doctors amended their bill to not seek title protection
for 'naturopath', thus eliminating the stated objection from 1997. Furthermore,
the enactment of the CAM Law, Statute 146A in 1999 protects these unlicensed
practitioners. The proposed 2008 legislation, SF1520, explicitly affirms Statute 146A and acknowledges the right to practice naturopathic modalities of care
for everyone.

Reason 3. The substance of the 'workgroup' proposal itself is outrageous.
It states "A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians who seek to practice naturopathic medicine".
The Minnesota Dept. Health examined the naturopathic doctors' educational
credentials in 1997 (see scanned images at the bottom, click to enlarge) and
stated: The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education is recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as the national accrediting agency for the programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees.
The U.S. Department of Education website documents every school that naturopathic doctors attend and lists all accredited programs in detail in
the U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs, http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/.
On the other hand, the opponents of the regulation for naturopathic physicians, led by the MNHLRP in Minnesota and the Council for Natural Health nationwide (as also stated in the 1997 Dept. of Health Report, see below) represent the interests of unaccredited diploma mills such as Clayton College of Natural Health in Alabama.
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (chea.org) lists unaccredited
schools, including Clayton. Clayton also appears in various state databases and
lists of unaccredited schools available online (Oregon, Michigan, Maine).
From the the State of Michigan document, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf:
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES NOT ACCREDITED BY CHEA
This is a listing of colleges and universities which are not currently accredited by an accrediting
body of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (www.chea.org). Degrees from these
institutions will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational
requirements indicated on job specifications. Please note that this list is not all inclusive;
unaccredited schools will be added as we become aware of them.
*
*
*
Clayton College of Natural Health – Alabama
*
*
*
(page 5, Revised 4/23/2008)
It would be a real travesty to have the representatives of unaccredited diploma
mills dictate to those whose professional education is recognized the U.S. Dept.
of Education what constitutes "proper level of education and training".

Please support naturopathic doctors and SF1520!

Documentation:

Case Studies of Occupational
Regulation
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN 1997 AND 1998
APPENDIX B
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/9905apb.pdf
NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS
Naturopathic
physicians have
sought licensure
in recent years.
Naturopathic doctors (NDs or naturopaths) are defined as “trained specialists in a
separate and distinct healing art which uses non-invasive natural medicine.”6
Naturopathic doctors are currently licensed in nine states,7 but they are not
regulated in Minnesota. Efforts of naturopaths to secure licensure in Minnesota
can be traced back to an unsuccessful proposal in 1909. However, after the
passage of the Basic Sciences Act in 1927, naturopaths who passed the Basic
Sciences Examination were entitled to registration. In 1974 much of the Basic
Sciences Act was repealed, including the registration of naturopathic doctors.8
Naturopaths have again sought licensure in recent years. In 1987 the Minnesota
Association of Naturopathic Physicians (MANP) submitted a proposal for
licensure under an independent board of Naturopathic Physician Examiners to the
then-operative Human Services Occupations Advisory Council (HSOAC).9 The
HSOAC’s final report declined to recommend state regulation, although a tie vote
by the council narrowly defeated a recommendation for the registration of
naturopathic doctors. According to the HSOAC report, the proposal failed
primarily on the cost effectiveness criterion in Chapter 214, since it would have
been difficult for the five naturopaths in Minnesota who would have qualified for
regulation at that time to provide the fee revenue necessary to support an
independent board.
Another proposal for licensing naturopaths was presented to the Legislature in
1997.10 The proposal was modeled after the acupuncturists’ practice act and
proposed regulation through an advisory board to the Board of Medical Practices.
This proposal was partially motivated by disciplinary actions brought by the
Board of Medical Practices against a practicing ND. This particular ND
acknowledged that she was performing activities reserved by statute for medical
doctors, but correctly pointed out that the practice act for physicians is extremely
broad. She argued that as a graduate of a four-year post-graduate program in
naturopathy her training was rigorous and adequately prepared her to provide the
services that she had provided. Indeed, the extensive training required by the
National Council on Naturopathic Education serves as the basic justification
92 OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION

offered by proponents of licensure. Ironically, the educational requirements also
served as the greatest impediment to the 1997 proposal. Among the most forceful
opposition to the bill was a diverse group of alternative medical practitioners,
many who use the title “naturopath.” Most if not all naturopaths who actively
opposed the proposal would not have met the educational requirements, and
feared possible restrictions on their practices if the proposal passed. Ultimately,
the 1997 proposal received hearings but did not win approval. However, it did
provide impetus for a report on Complimentary and Alternative Medicine by the
Minnesota Department of Health, which concluded that there is not presently
enough information to justify government regulation of naturopaths or other
alternative medical providers.11
The case of naturopathic doctors reveals some of the difficulty that smaller
professional groups face in attempting to gain state regulation. Given that the
most vocal opposition to the bill came from other practitioners of naturopathy, the
proposal to license “qualified” naturopathic doctors also illustrates the way
occupational regulation can be used to “fence out” potential competitors.
However, the same could be said of the long-established regulation of medical
doctors: the medical doctors’ practice act effectively prevents naturopathic
physicians from exercising the full scope of practice in which they have been
trained.
The case of naturopaths also provides an example of the Legislature using a report
to inform its decisions regarding occupational regulation. In some ways this
demonstrates the ability of the Legislature to implement studies on an “as needed”
basis, which would seem to negate the need to establish a more institutionalized
sunrise review process, as we recommend in Chapter 3. However, the report
casted a broad net and concluded with a blanket recommendation against
regulating any of the professions providing complementary and alternative
medical services. While the report does represent a laudable attempt to bring
more objective reasoning to bear on the issue, it was not focused on the particular
proposal at hand, as was the more useful HSOAC report issued in response to the
1987 proposal.
APPENDIX B 93
6 Wendell W. Whitman, N.D., M.Di., “What is a Naturopath,” WWW document, URL
http://www.cnra.org/what.is.a.naturopath.html, December 8, 1998. Mr. Whitman is an associate
of the Council on Naturopathic Registration and Accreditation, based in Washington D.C. His
definition of Naturopathic Doctors continues: “... Naturopathic doctors are conventionally trained
in subjects such as anatomy, physiology, counseling, dietary evaluations, nutrition, herbology,
acupressure, muscle relaxation and structural normalization, homeopathy, iridology, exercise
therapy, hydrotherapy, oxygen therapy and thermal therapy. Some practitioners are also trained in
additional specialties such as acupuncture or natural childbirth.”
7 Smith-Peters, The Directory of Professional and Occupational Regulation in the United
States.
8 Complementary Medicine: A Report to the Legislature, (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department
of Health, Health Economics Program, January 15, 1998).
9 Human Services Occupations Advisory Council Recommendations on the Regulation of Naturopathic
Physicians, (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, October 27, 1988). The
Staff Recommendation and Commissioner’s Determination that normally accompanied HSOAC
reports were not made in this case since funding for the study was stopped prior to completion.
10 H.F. 396/S.F. 523 and H.F. 780/S.F. 561.
11 Complementary Medicine: A Report to the Legislature. The study was mandated through an
amendment to the 1997 Omnibus Health and Human Services Appropriations Act - Minn. Laws
(1997) ch. 203, sec. 3, subd. 2.

Complementary medicine : final report to the Legislature.
St. Paul, Minn. : Health Economics Program, Minnesota Dept. of Health
OCLC Number: 38946716
Minn. Pub. Number: 98-0251
http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/980251.pdf

Please Support Naturopathic Doctors in Minnesota and SF 1520! A look at the new 'Action Alert' from the MNHLRP

Another 'Alert' courtesy of direct-sales Nature Sunshine Products Inc.'s "Sunshine Health Freedom Foundation".
The lunatic fringe that hijacked the Minnesota Natural Health Legal Reform
Projects agenda lies about being the voice of Minnesotans and Natural Health.
It can not speak for anyone who can reason, which must include the majority of the MNHLRP members.
It only voices its own insanity.
Please oppose hysteria and paranoia!
Please support naturopathic doctors and SF1520!
Comments in bold dark blue.
Please comment.

**Minnesota Alert**

MINNESOTA HEALTH FREEDOM ALERT

May 7, 2008

Please oppose HF 1724 –a bill for naturopathic physician registration.

HF 1724 is listed on the agenda for the House of Representatives. We’re asking for your help to stop this bill on the floor of the House. Please take a moment and copy and paste the three points of this alert and email it to your Representative. Please take the time to email it to as many Reps as you can.

Honorable Representative,

I am a constituent writing you about HF 1724 – a bill for naturopathic physician registration.

1. There is HUGE CONTROVERSY out there amongst citizens, The CITIZENS have not been properly heard!
You made up a pile of lies and have been bombarding everyone non-stop with your insane rantings. So much for the controversy.

2. The public is already protected under Mn. Stat. 146A – The Complementary and Alternative Health Care act overwhelmingly passed by this legislature in 2000.

That is how it should be. 146A protects unlicensed healers. It does NOT forbid naturopathic doctors, who are regulated as a distinct profession in many states, from developing their profession in Minnesota and seeking recognition. It does NOT create a cartel to stop naturopathic doctors's registration at any cost.

3. This bill will put these naturopaths under the jurisdiction of the Board of Medical practices. This jeopardizes the whole field of Natural Health because the Board of Medical Practice does not have a history of sympathy for or understanding of Natural Health.

Are you trying to kill naturopathic doctors' legislation, HF1724/SF1520, for their own benefit? So that the Board of Medical

Practice does not molest them? What a load of rubbish! If the public, which by the way includes medical profession, believes that your

lunatic fringe represents 'Natural Health', that is terrible news.

Shouting non-stop lies does not make you the voice of the public, or

natural health, it only demonstrates how crazy you are.

You are your own worse enemy. The more people hear your brain-dead proclamations, the less they are likely to support you.

The Minnesota House overwhelmingly voted to support naturopathic

doctors and passed HF 1724 90 to 42, May 7th!

Sincerely,

(insert your name, address and phone number)

To find your Representative, visit this link:

http://geo.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/districts/start.html

For a list of all Representatives by District, visit this link:

http://www.gis.leg.mn/php/house.php?Report=HouseMem

Click on the name of the Representative for their contact information.

Thank you so much for all your help. Please contact us with any questions and please communicate back to us any feedback you receive from Representatives.

Sincerely,

MNHLRP

651-322-4542

mnhlrp@charter.net

*************************************************************************************************************************************

WEDNESDAY MAY 1, 2008

Dear Concerned Citizens:

We have reached a crucial stage in our important fight to stop the threat presented by Senate File 1520 -- a bill for naturopathic registration with licensure to be sought next year. Your personal help is needed NOW!

We need you to make personal calls to the offices of the following state Senators and ask to leave a message that you called to oppose SF 1520, the bill authored by Senator Patricia Torres Ray to register certain naturopaths and permit them to exclusive use of the term “doctor”. We believe the bill would do harm to some of the traditional complementary and alternative health care practices community.

This must be the crux of the matter. In MInnesota, nobody is allowed to present themselves as "Doctor of Naturopathy" under the current statutes. The new bill reserves 'naturopathic doctor' for those who completed 4-year full-time doctorate programs in professionally accredited naturopathic medical schools, and who are eligible to be licensed as naturopathic doctors in many states. This must be too much to bear for the representatives of diploma mills, who confer bogus 'Doctor of Naturopathy' degrees. Their degrees are not recognized by ANY state licensing or professional, or educational accreditation body in any state. This is all that 'controversy' is about. So much for looking after the citizens of Minnesota.

Please ask to leave a short, respectful courteous message with the Senator’s assistant or on their voice mail. Calling the number after hours and leaving a voice mail message is perfectly acceptable.

Your work really matters! If you can make 20 phone calls, you can be a critical part of stopping this bill!

A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians who seek to practice naturopathic medicine, while ensuring that naturopathy and the other complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) remain in the public domain, and can be practiced by traditional naturopaths and other unlicensed complementary and alternative practitioners.

This is the opponents' last chance to kill the bill. The bill does not change what anyone can do under 146A in any way. Minnesota state agencies studied the subject in 1998 and 1987. To have controversy, there must be opposing views.

All states regulating naturopathic doctors use similar standards. The proposal for 'workgroup' is to have representatives of unaccredited diploma mills, such as Boyd Landry, to dictate what constitutes
proper education for trained naturopathic doctors, who attend schools accredited by a U.S. Department of Education recognized professional board. If anyone were to try argue before any state educational accreditation agency which examines validity of one's educational credentials to accept any degree from an unaccredited correspondence school they would be ridiculed.

YOUR MESSAGE IS:

It should read: I am totally crazy and have no idea what I am talking.

“I/We oppose Senate File 1520, the natural health care regulation bill. Further study and agreement among the affected parties is needed for any legislation to be appropriate and acceptable to practitioners and consumers. The bill in its current form must be opposed unless it is replaced with an interim working group”.

Please call the offices of:

Thank you for your very important help. If you can also email or call other Senators, so much the better. A complete list of the Senate Finance committee is above.

If you need more background, please see the one page summary of our position that is being used at the Capitol that is set out below.

************************************************************************

SF Naturopathic Doctor Registration Bill – 1520/HF 1724

1. Why is this bill so controversial?

Citizens and practitioners are concerned that the real intent behind this registration bill is to remove naturopathy and many of the modalities practiced safely under existing law from the list of complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) that unlicensed providers can offer. This concern is based upon the following facts:

v The bill contains a broad scope of practice which overlaps into other licensed and unlicensed practice areas.
(1) This overlap has not been vetted with unlicensed CAP practitioners and
(2) Amendments to clarify this scope of practice have been refused by the proponents.

v The bill originally was introduced as a licensure bill.

v The authors and the proponents have stated that they wish “naturopathic physicians” to be licensed under Minnesota law. Recent bill introductions indicate a clear intention to limit who can practice naturopathy.

Are If there is another bill that concerns you, please take this up with the author of that bill!

v Citizens and unlicensed CAP practitioners who vigorously oppose this bill desire to continue to access and provide “naturopathy”, as practiced by traditional naturopaths for centuries which “does no harm”. Traditional naturopaths have no desire to be trained in or to prescribe prescription drugs and/or perform surgical techniques. They should be permitted to continue to serve the public in their respective careers and modalities without fear or interference of a creeping registration/licensure campaign.

SF 1520 is carefully worded to make sure that anyone protected under current CAM Law, 146A, will not have any

of his or her rights jeopardized under proposed legislature. Please read what it says!

2. a working group is the most sensible way to move forward:

The naturopathic physicians desire to be licensed, with oversight by the Medical Board, practice naturopathic medicine, and to be able to use the title “doctor.” These 20 naturopathic physicians desire to perform invasive medical practices i.e., surgery, prescribing prescription drugs, and childbirth, all of which warrant further regulation (registration or licensure) by the State).

Throughout the progress of this bill in both houses more questions have arisen than have been answered. More and more interested parties are becoming aware of the legislation and expressing their concerns. To avoid what has happened in this process, the Legislature passed Chapter 214 requiring extensive study before such legislation can proceed.

A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians who seek to practice naturopathic medicine, while ensuring that naturopathy and the other complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) remain in the public domain, and can be practiced by traditional naturopaths and other unlicensed complementary and alternative practitioners.

Summary: PURE NONSENSE, through and through, without any rhyme or reason.

Sincerely,

Minnesota Natural Health Legal Reform Project

651-322-4542

mnhlrp@charter.net

An important reason to support SF 1520 and protect the title 'Registered Naturopathic Doctor'

Please consider the following in support of SF 1520, the naturopathic doctor registration bill in Minnesota.
An unrecognized accreditation board for naturopathic doctors in Washington, D.C., the Council on
Naturopathic Registration and Accreditation, Inc. promotes its "Registered Naturopath" and "Registered Naturopathic Doctor" certifications:
'To be sure of the training of your naturopathic doctor and his/her adherence to natural healing principles, ask your doctor if he/she is a "Registered Naturopathic Doctor." '(from http://www.cnra.org/whatis.php)
The CNRA professional looking website lists certain requirements for registration:

1. You must hold an N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy) degree from an accredited school.
2. You must be currently involved in the naturopathic profession as a practicing naturopath.
3. If one exists, you should be a member of your state naturopathic organization
4. You should be a member of a national naturopathic organization.

However, there is no list of accredited schools and the only real requirement appears to be filling out an online form and paying $150.

The benefit to registration (i.e. paying $150) is listing in the practitioner directory linked from the cnra.org website, which in turn appears to be a link to HealthKeepers Online Practitioner Directory Search, , http://www.healthpro.net/HKD/search.html

Here is a telling example,
if we go to the directory, http://www.healthpro.net/HKD/search.html and input Colorado as a keyword (please click on images to enlarge )
You will find the list of presumed 'Registered Naturopathic Doctors' in Colorado:
Please click on the 6th entry from the top to learn something about Dr. Brian O'Connell:
Dr. O'Connell was profiled in the Seattle Times article "Teen's death hastened by practitioner who had bogus diplomas" (please read it online at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004024299_miracle20m0.html)
and is serving 13 years in prison for criminally negligent homicide.
To this day, he is listed in the Council on Naturopathic Registration and Accreditation Inc.'s directory of Registered Naturopathic Doctors, in spite of being tried and convicted 4 years ago!
This clearly shows that contrary to the claims of opponents of SF 1520, the Bill to Register Naturopathic Doctors in Minnesota, naturopathic doctor regulation is a matter of public safety.
SF 1520 will promote public safety of Minnesotans by ensuring that only qualified naturopathic doctors with valid credentials are registered.
Please support SF 1520!

100 Years Ago in Medical Education: The Flexner Report

The Flexner Report, commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation in 1908 and published in 1910, transformed medical education in the United States.
The Wikipedia has an excellent article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_report
which discusses the state of medical education at the time of the report and the report's consequences, such as closure of many medical schools and the impact on alternative medicine.

The Organic Consumers Association blindly follows the opponents of SF 1520

The OCA, which reportedly has 850,000 members nationwide, has been co-opted into
the MNHLRP all-out effort to derail the naturopathic doctor regulation bill in Minnesota.
How could circulating lies be in the interests of organic consumers?
The OCA position language to organize grassroots campaign against ND registration is lifted verbatim from the recent MNHLRP letter.
Please contact the OCA to register you concern about their position.

Here is the text http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11852.cfm:

Take Action! Oppose Naturopathic Registration Bill and Grass Roots Request!

• 
  
  

Please pass this on to all!!

This is how far the system is degrading. When we have 25 individuals and a pill company, that can make this kind of impact to stop the consumers free choice of health care. Why? Can you say GREED and EGO!

This kind of bureaucratic compost has to be stopped in order for us to keep our choice of health care. In the day of outrageously high costing alopathic health care, which mainly pushes pills to mask the symptoms, us traditional and natural minded Alternative and Complimentary health care providers use more of the earthy and non-synthetic remedies, would still like to be able to keep our scope of practice under the already existing bill 146A.

So if you value your freedom of choice please let your Senators and Representatives know how you stand. They are sitting in St. Paul waiting for your calls and mails. They do not read minds very well and NEED to hear your voice and see your writing! This is how the system works.

So PLEASE do something! Our freedoms are slipping away fast enough with out having our right to choose our own health care taken away.

Thank you, EW Spencer April 26, 2008,

Dear Health Freedom Supporters:

Why we want to oppose this bill:

1. The original bill was introduced as a licensure bill for 25 naturopaths. Had this form of the bill been accepted and passed ALL PRACTITIONERS would have had to STOP their practice. This bill would have brought ALL natural health care modalities into the Medical Board control.
2. This original bill was changed to a registration bill for these same 25 naturopaths. Although the bill is no longer licensure, it still contains the harmful language and lists all the modalities in the scope of practice. It is still bringing all modalities listed in the scope of practice to the Medical Board's jurisdiction. When the registered naturopathic doctors seek licensure, the modalities in the scope of practice will have been under the Medical Board for x amount of years and it will be very difficult for an unlicensed professional to practice these modalities without being regulated by the Board of Medicine.
3. Any practitioner with a Naturopathic Doctor or Diplomat diploma is at immediate risk of loosing the ability to use "N.D." as their title unless the diploma was earned from one of the six schools listed in the bill.
4. The intention of the original licensure bill was obvious. The 25 naturopaths wanted control of all natural health practices and modalities and they wanted to be regulated as doctors by the Medical Board. There has been no change in the direction of the intention of the registration bill. It, the registration bill, is just a small stepping stone back to the original goal to control and have a monopoly.

Listen to our discussion of this hot issue on the radio Monday April 28, 2008 - details below.

We are making positive headway with the help of your calls, emails and hand delivered letters. It only takes 150 letters to get their attention. Your calls, emails and letters will make the difference! The bill for Naturopathic Registration is going into yet another committee in the House of Representatives and we are calling on you again for your help to STOP it and preserve your right to practice!

1. Write a letter or email (hand written letter is the best choice) Call the Representatives and Senators on the list and your own Rep. and Senator. Call House Info @ 651-296-2146 Use this link to find your representative .
   
2. We need to flood these Legislators with phone calls. Please take a moment and call through the lists provided at the end of the email. Tell Representatives you want "naturopath" and "naturopathy" to remain in the public domain and to oppose HF 1724.
3. Attend the House Ways and Means hearing - we will send out an email when the date is set.
4. Spend a day at the Capitol lobbying Representatives - let your voice be heard! Contact us right away if you're interested in this critical grass roots work! 651-322-4542

Please get your calls and emails in by 5:00pm Tuesday April 29, 2008. For hand written/hand delivered letters, please call or email MNHLRP for delivery options. If you're a practitioner, we have additional talking points you will want to include in your communications. Please contact us right away!

Please communicate any comments from members of the House Ways and Means Committee. This information is crucial in lobbying against HF 1724 in Minnesota. So that we may alert you more quickly in the future, please send me your e-mail address. mnhlrp@charter.net 651-322-4542

If your practitioner uses an N.D. after his/her name, please share this action alert with them.

Hear the President of MNHLRP, Gregory Schmidt and Katie Murphy of Healing Insights on KFAI Radio hosted by Kenshasha Kambui on the program "Health Notes"

KFAI Radio Minneapolis FM 90.3 St Paul FM 106.7 Monday April 28, 2008 from 11:00 AM to 12 Noon

Sample Letter(Use your own words and list your own concerns)

Dear Representative [insert name]

Please oppose SF 1520 (hf 1724), a bill to give title and practice protection to a small group of less than 25 naturopaths.

Reasons to oppose this bill:

1. Here is huge controversy over this bill in the natural health community. The concerns of consumers and traditional natural health care practitioners are ignored in the rush to pass this legislation.
2. The bill purports to grant "title protection" to about 25 people. In reality the bill threatens the whole underpinning of the natural health community that practices under Minn.Stat. 146A.
3. The Minnesota legislature recognized that Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health care practices are natural and do NOT require licensure. Chapter 146A - The Complementary and Alternative Health Care Practices Act -- became law in 2000.
4. The legislature has revisited this statute in 2004, 2005 and 2007, and fundamentally reaffirmed it. It is working, and should not be changed without justification. The legislation jeopardizes whether "naturopathy" as practiced by "traditional naturopaths" will remain in the public domain - where these complementary and alternative modalities are currently practiced and openly accessed by consumers.
5. Financially the State should not spend money to protect a small group to have exclusive access to the title of "Doctor". Historically, licensure and registration increases cost of health care.
6. Licensure and registration has always been brought by a small group of people to secure their economic base. The consuming public is not asking for this legislation.

In this case, the Minnesota Association of Naturopathic Physicians (MnANP), a chapter of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) , is the special interest group that is seeking a monopoly on the practice of naturopathy; the website for the MNANP equates "naturopathic medicine" with "naturopathy."

The registration of this small group of "naturopathic doctors" is only the first step in the ultimate licensing and/or restriction on the entire profession.

Thank you for hearing our concerns at SF 1520/HF 1724.

Respectfully,

[insert your name, address, and phone number]

House Ways and Means Committee Chair: Loren Solberg (DFL) 651-296-2365 rep.loren.solberg@house.mn

Vice Chair: Marsha Swails (DFL) 651-296-1147 rep.marsha.swails@house.mn

Lead-GOP: Mary Liz Holberg (R) 651-296-6926 rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn

Jim Abeler (R) 651-296-1729 rep.jim.abeler@house.mn

Kathy Brynaert (DFL) 651-296-3248 rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn

Lyndon Carlson (DFL) 651-296-4255 rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn

Karen Clark (DFL) 651-296-0294 rep.karen.clark@house.mn

Matt Dean (R) 651-296-3018 rep.matt.dean@house.mn

Steve Drazkowski (R) 651-296-2273 rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn

Kent Eken (DFL) 651-296-9918 rep.kent.eken@house.mn

Ron Erhardt (R) 651-296-4363 rep.ron.erhardt@house.mn

Mindy Greiling (DFL) 651-296-5387 rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn

Bob Gunther (R) 651-296-3240 rep.bob.gunther@house.mn

Debra Hilstrom (DFL) 651-296-3709 rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn

Bill Hilty (DFL) 651-296-4308 rep.bill.hilty@house.mn

Thomas Huntley (DFL) 651-296-2228 rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn

Phyllis Kahn (DFL) 651-296-4257 rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn

Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL) 651-296-0171 rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn

Ann Lenczewski (DFL) 651-296-4218 rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn

Carlos Mariani (DFL) 651-296-9714 rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn

Denny McNamara (R) 651-296-3135 rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn

Erin Murphy (DFL) 651-296-8799 rep.erin.murphy@house.mn

Mary Murphy (DFL) 651-296-2676 rep.mary.murphy@house.mn

Dennis Ozment (R) 651-296-4306 rep.dennis.ozment@house.mn

Erik Paulsen (R) 651-296-7449 rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn

Gene Pelowski Jr. (DFL) 651-296-8637 rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn

Anthony "Tony" Sertich (DFL) 651-296-0172 rep.tony.sertich@house.mn

Steve Smith (R) 651-296-9188 rep.steve.smith@house.mn

Ken Tschumper (DFL) 651-296-9278 rep.ken.tschumper@house.mn

Please stand up for reason and support SF 1520 to counter the lies MNHLRP repeats in their new 'Action Alert'

The Sunshine Health Freedom Foundation posted a new alert on behalf of the MNHLRP,
http://www.sunshinehealthfreedomfoundation.com/page/page/5629935.htm
There is not a shred of reason or truth in this alert, same as all the others.
The Sunshine Health Freedom Foundation is a front for the Nature Sunshine Products Inc., one of the largest diet supplement multi-level marketing companies in the world.
Please send the message to the multi-level marketers from Utah to butt out of Minnesota's affairs!
Please support SF 1520!!

Text in full, with comments in blue:

**Minnesota Alert**

MINNESOTA HEALTH FREEDOM ALERT

May 1, 2008

DID YOU KNOW????
Your right to practice and receive natural health product and therapy is in jeopardy? There are bills currently in session that are jeopardizing our rights!

Attend a free public meeting to hear the truth - read the bills - ask questions.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7TH FROM 7:00 to 9:00 PM

Valley View Middle School
8900 Portland Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420

Pre-Registration Recommended
by calling 651-322-4542 or emailing mnhlrp@charter.net

Don't Wait Until It's Too Late

*************************************************************************************************************************************

WEDNESDAY MAY 1, 2008

Dear Concerned Citizens:

We have reached a crucial stage in our important fight to stop the threat presented by Senate File 1520 -- a bill for naturopathic registration with licensure to be sought next year. Your personal help is needed NOW!

We need you to make personal calls to the offices of the following state Senators and ask to leave a message that you called to oppose SF 1520, the bill authored by Senator Patricia Torres Ray to register certain naturopaths and permit them to exclusive use of the term “doctor”. We believe the bill would do harm to some of the traditional complementary and alternative health care practices community.

Please ask to leave a short, respectful courteous message with the Senator’s assistant or on their voice mail. Calling the number after hours and leaving a voice mail message is perfectly acceptable.

Your work really matters! If you can make 20 phone calls, you can be a critical part of stopping this bill!

A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners
What licensed practitioners?
the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians So that people who have no valid educational credentials can dictate what constitutes "appropriate level of education and training" to those who graduated from the only educational institutions recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education as accredited to grant "Naturopathic Doctor" and "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine"degrees?
who seek to practice naturopathic medicine, while ensuring that naturopathy and the other complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) remain in the public domain, and can be practiced by traditional naturopaths and other unlicensed complementary and alternative practitioners.SF1520 clearly states that there are no restrictions on anyone who wishes to practice naturopathic modalities.

YOUR MESSAGE IS:

“I/We oppose Senate File 1520, the natural health care regulation bill. Further study and agreement among the affected parties is needed for any legislation to be appropriate and acceptable to practitioners and consumers. The bill in its current form must be opposed unless it is replaced with an interim working group”.

One of the "affected parties", the MNHLRP is run by a group that completely opposes any kind of regulation at all. "The working group" proposal is a gimmick to kill the SF 1520. Please support the naturopathic doctors and SF 1520!

list of the Senate Finance committee is above.

If you need more background, please see the one page summary of our position that is being used at the Capitol that is set out below.

************************************************************************

SF Naturopathic Doctor Registration Bill – 1520/HF 1724

1. Why is this bill so controversial?

Citizens and practitioners are concerned that the real intent behind this registration bill is to remove naturopathy and many of the modalities practiced safely under existing law from the list of complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) that unlicensed providers can offer. This concern is based upon the following facts:

v The bill contains a broad scope of practice which overlaps into other licensed and unlicensed practice areas.
(1) This overlap has not been vetted with unlicensed CAP practitioners and
(2) Amendments to clarify this scope of practice have been refused by the proponents.

v The bill originally was introduced as a licensure bill.

v The authors and the proponents have stated that they wish “naturopathic physicians” to be licensed under Minnesota law. Recent bill introductions indicate a clear intention to limit who can practice naturopathy.

v Citizens and unlicensed CAP practitioners who vigorously oppose this bill desire to continue to access and provide “naturopathy”, as practiced by traditional naturopaths for centuries which “does no harm”. Traditional naturopaths have no desire to be trained in or to prescribe prescription drugs and/or perform surgical techniques. They should be permitted to continue to serve the public in their respective careers and modalities without fear or interference of a creeping registration/licensure campaign.

2. a working group is the most sensible way to move forward:

The naturopathic physicians desire to be licensed, with oversight by the Medical Board, practice naturopathic medicine, and to be able to use the title “doctor.” These 20 naturopathic physicians desire to perform invasive medical practices i.e., surgery, prescribing prescription drugs, and childbirth, all of which warrant further regulation (registration or licensure) by the State).

Throughout the progress of this bill in both houses more questions have arisen than have been answered. More and more interested parties are becoming aware of the legislation and expressing their concerns. To avoid what has happened in this process, the Legislature passed Chapter 214 requiring extensive study before such legislation can proceed.

A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians who seek to practice naturopathic medicine, while ensuring that naturopathy and the other complementary and alternative health care practices (CAP) remain in the public domain, and can be practiced by traditional naturopaths and other unlicensed complementary and alternative practitioners.

Sincerely,

Minnesota Natural Health Legal Reform Project

651-322-4542

mnhlrp@charter.net