Ezekiel Stephan: Why naturopaths shouldn’t treat children—or anyone else

[HuckleB]

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/05/ezekiel-stephan-why-naturopaths-shouldnt-treat-children-or-anyone-else/

"...

Whenever a tragic case like this comes along, it’s useful to consider what naturopaths claim compared to what they actually do. I’m referring specifically to the oft-repeated claim by naturopaths that they can function as primary care providers, not just for adults but for children. In Alberta, Canada, for instance, the provinicial government has granted the College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta (CNDA) the power to self-govern their profession. Indeed, as Alheli Picazo notes, there is a profound irony here in that, in prosecuting the Stephans, the Alberta government is prosecuting parents who pursued cures from quacks that it licenses and thereby legitimizes. Indeed, Tannis herself graduated from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in 2003 and is licensed in “good standing” in Alberta. It’s thus very scary to consider that, despite the extreme inadequacy of naturopathic training that leads them to treat diseases with ineffective herbs and other interventions, naturopathy as a quack field has the extreme hubris to think that its members can actually deal with the common diseases that primary care doctors see and treat.

All of this brings up the difference between adults and children again. Again, adults can choose whatever quackery they want, including naturopaths, although I would point out that the state should not facilitate such a choice or otherwise legitimize it by licensing such a pseudoscientific profession. That very same legitimization helps lead parents to think that naturopaths can treat children, too. Granted, in this case it clearly wasn’t the fact that Tannis is a licensed naturopath that led the Stephans to think it was acceptable to seek help for their son from her. They are clearly so far down the rabbit hole of quackery in their belief system that it almost certainly doesn’t matter either way to them whether naturopaths are licensed. However, to other parents, who might be a bit woo-susceptible but aren’t hard core believers, state licensure implies a legitimate profession, which might lower their skepticism.

...

There’s no “may or may not” about licensure conferring legitimacy to naturopathy. It’s why naturopaths fight so hard for licensure, because with it comes legitimacy. After the Affordable Care Act, if a state licenses a health care profession, then health insurance companies have to pay for their services, which is yet another reason naturopaths crave state licensure, at least here in the US.

Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t allow naturopaths to treat anything. I’d even be loathe to let them give nutrition advice, so steeped in pseudoscience and prescientific mystical ideas is their world view. That being said, stopping them from being able to treat children in order to make it more difficult and less likely for a woo-believing parent to take their children to a quack naturopath quack."

-------------------------------------------------------------------


It's time to stand up to people who are playing doctor and expecting to get paid for it. It simply is not legitimate.

[HassleCat]

1. I'm not a scientist, but...

You should take me seriously when I speak on scientific subjects.

[HuckleB]

2. OK, then.

Anything to say about the OP?

[HassleCat]

4. I better explain

They are not scientists. They do not study science. They deny science. They do not study medicine, in fact. They might as well be astrologers. But they appear in front of government regulatory panels and demand they be recognized for their scientific and medical accomplishment. It's the same thing we get from climate change deniers.

[HuckleB]

6. Got it.

[Mika]

3. Only big pharma approved methodologies for kids.

[HuckleB]

5. I'm sorry that you think we should ignore science and let scam artists run rampant.

[Mika]

7. Yeh. That's exactly what I said. Exactly.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to contort my comment.

What you might need is a - although, it's not big pharma approved.

[HuckleB]

8. No one contorted your comment.

Nice try. Shouting "Big Pharma" is not a legitimate way to dismiss science, nor does it justify pseudoscience-based scam artists.

[Mika]

9. No one except you.

Please find a post here that states that I think we should ignore science and let scam artists run rampant.

Hint: you won't find one from me, because I never said any such thing.

Thanks for playing - I'm out.

[HuckleB]

10. So you now claim your response was meaningless.

Got it.

[mopinko]

12. funny. that's how i read it, too.

the logical outcome of your comment is just what hb said.

[HassleCat]

11. That's correst

Because those have been evaluated by the government, run through tests and trials, monitored for adverse reactions and side effects while on the market, pulled if they turn out to be dangerous, etc. The same cannot be said for remedies "infused with organic chi energy" and such.