Have you heard there are some naturopathic doctors supporting the naturopathic licensing legislation? Many more traditional naturopathic doctors are opposed to this bill after considering the unintended consequences of the medical board regulating the traditional naturopathic profession.
Update: Testimony on the bill was heard on Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. East Wing basement room E20. The public testimony took the entire 3 hours and the vote was delayed. The legislators on the committee will be receiving emails and considering these as they vote. Send Your Emails to the Representatives. They are listed here.
Idaho Naturopathic Licensing Bill
HB 152 NEW NUMBER #196
The majority of states have said no to licensing of Naturopathic Physicians. If this is as good, as it is being presented, why are the majority of states saying no?
The arguments for it is that:
It allows naturopathic physicians trained in certain schools in the US and Canada to be able to practice to the full extent of their training, ordering labs, prescribing medications, perform minor office procedures and be eligible for third-party reimbursement.
Currently, there are about 25 naturopathic physicians in Idaho that would benefit from this legislation, which accounts for less than 10 percent of practicing naturopathic doctors in Idaho.
With the new school of osteopathic medicine opening up in Meridian, Idaho, there will be no shortage of primary care providers. Currently, there are plenty of walk-in clinics where patients can be seen by a doctor if they urgently need to do so. It is not uncommon for a practitioner to learn techniques in school that they are not able to practice.
Naturopathic medicine is not about prescribing medications nor doing surgery. The medical profession already has that covered. It is to offer a more holistic and restorative solution to all types of imbalances that may not, may, or do manifest as a physical ailment. It is not about just prescribing a steroid cream to suppress a rash. It is about recognizing that the body uses symptoms to communicate imbalances, and rather than suppressing that communication with a pharmaceutical drug, exploring the underlying cause and addressing that in a restorative fashion to bring the body back to health. We don’t need more people prescribing medications.
The pharmaceutical companies already have plenty of distributors in their direct marketing down line that peddles their products. At this time in history when we are exposed to more toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and stressors than ever, we need more practitioners that practice non-toxic restorative medicine. The schools that are touting themselves as the gold standard in naturopathic medicine are doing naturopathy a disservice by promoting that their graduates become another income stream for the pharmaceutical companies and by supporting mandatory vaccines. In their effort to be recognized by the medical community, they are losing their own identity.
The naturopathic physicians who would benefit from this type of legislation feel that it would also avoid confusion in the market place as to which naturopathic doctor is properly trained and which one is not and claiming that licensing is a part of professional standards.
Competency within a profession should be regulated within the profession, not by the government.
Licensing establishes a minimum competency and gives the consumer the false illusion of competency. Without licensing, the market forces the consumer to educate themselves about the options available so that the consumer can make a more educated decision. Licensing may favor a less competent licensed practitioner while giving the impression that a very skilled unlicensed practitioner is not competent. It is better to let the free market decide and have trust in the consumer. Incompetent unlicensed practitioners will naturally go out of business, just like any business that provides poor service. Nowadays, there are plenty of tools available for the consumer to educate themselves about any product or service they chose to acquire.
They also make the argument that caring for patients come with inherent risk and licensing will help to keep the public safer from those risks.
Caring for your child, spouse, a parent also comes with an inherent risk. Just because we are caring for someone does not establish the need for a license.
Naturopathic medicine is safe medicine using tools that the majority of people can buy at their local health food store. Risks can never fully be eliminated. You take a certain risk when you walk across the street. We cannot project the risk of allopathic medicine onto naturopathic medicine. Allopathic medicine has put itself as the third leading cause of death, while naturopathic medicine is a safe option using restorative and nourishing modality.
- Currently, hundreds of Idahoans are going to border states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Utah) to see licensed naturopathic physicians who can prescribe and manage medications instead of having to spend the time and money to see another primary care doctor as now required in Idaho.
This is a very small number compared to the tens of thousands of patients that will be impacted if their local naturopathic doctor is pushed out of business since he cannot accept insurance and is viewed as less or irrelevant without a license.
Idaho has plenty of medical doctors that are able to prescribe medications. I can’t see how traveling to another state is faster and costs less for the patient unless they live close to the border. This is a poor argument. No one would use this argument in regards to legalizing marijuana because people travel across the border to get it elsewhere. A law should be passed only if it is good for the citizens of Idaho without infringing on someone’s unalienable rights.
Idaho’s naturopathic physicians requested the Board of Medicine’s support and oversight because licensed naturopathic physicians work collaboratively within the medical system and refer to specialists when needed. In other states, licensed ND’s work in hospitals, research facilities, and interdisciplinary clinics.
There is a big difference between working collaboratively with and working collaboratively within the medical system. There is no need for a license in order to work collaboratively with the medical profession or other health providers. All you need is a reputation of competency. A license is not going to give you that.
Unlicensed NDs have interdisciplinary clinics, conduct research, and develop programs that major medical systems are interested in acquiring. The issue becomes if you chose to work within the system. Now you are having to alter your own principles to reduce friction between professions and fit within the medical model. This means you need to shift your thinking from a naturopathic model to more of an allopathic model. This is why the naturopathic schools benefiting from this legislation fall in line with the ideology of pushing for the CDC vaccine schedule, even though it is opposite to its own principles to inject toxic substances (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc.) directly into the blood. Taking this a step further.
Let’s say you accept the medical system to regulate the naturopathic profession which this piece of legislation does. This removes your choice to conform or not conform to the medical model and puts it in the hands of a group that has no understanding nor any desire to understand what naturopathy is. Gradually naturopathy will be altered until at the end it is unrecognizable.
Tell your legislators to VOTE AGAINST this legislation: EMAIL LIST