BC Naturopaths imminent to have power to prescribe/order labs/image/minor surgery

[The Law]

The first decent comment I have read. Even though I completely disagree with allowing full prescribing rights for naturopaths like most of you, I couldn't help cringing at the immature, snobbish and just plain mean posts on here. Everyone is free to have their opinions, but I wish it was expressed in a more mature way with specific reasons/discussion for your concerns (i.e. without resorting to calling them quacks who use smoke and mirrors etc etc).

 

Unfortunately, providing patients with treatments on things that you "feel" are correct without proof is dangerous. Often times, treatments suggested by naturopaths are actually harmful to patients. When someone suggests a treatment to work, despite any evidence to support such a claim - you are officially dealing with quackery. The public deserves better.

 

The truth is, they provide a service the public seems to want: They're not going anywhere. And please don't assume they're going to end up killing people left right and centre without proper evidence...and frankly hospitals with their "legitimate" doctors, nurses, PTs, dieticians, pharmacists etc. do a good enough job with that already.

 

As coatslacker says, people want to hang on to their loved ones forever. Doctors cannot play God and save everyone, it is just not possible. Hospitals don't kill people... people often die in hospitals, but it is very rarely the fault of a medical professional. I mean, grandfather recently passed away, and I heard one of my aunts saying how she hates doctors - when really, his doctors could not possibly have done anything to save his life. It is out of this frustration that people begin to seek "alternative" approaches to medicine or out of a misunderstanding due to the fancy propaganda the profession tries to portray as evidence-based medicine. People don't know how to critically analyze all the information they are given, but as many of us here are students in the sciences - of course we will be very critical of scientists who use pseudoscience to try to treat their patients. This really is a very serious matter. People who are not qualified enough to be treating patients alone are being given the right to do so - and this is dangerous to public health.

[xylem29]

I think lilly may have been referring to medical errors - which are astonishingly not rare at all.

 

"The statistics in the IOM report, which were based on two large studies, suggest that medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death among Americans..."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/06/09/med_errors040609.html

 

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

 

However, these are honest mistakes - usually due to a flaw in the system, rather than incompetence or quackery.

 

Edit: Law, lol...nice sig ---> "You may be abcwxyz but I'm the Rest.of.the.Alphabet." -Rest.of.the.Alphabet

 

That amused me the first time I read that....that guy/girl signed up just to harass abcwxyz...lol

[leviathan]

I think lilly may have been referring to medical errors - which are astonishingly not rare at all.

 

"The statistics in the IOM report, which were based on two large studies, suggest that medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death among Americans..."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/06/09/med_errors040609.html

 

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

 

However, these are honest mistakes - usually due to a flaw in the system, rather than incompetence or quackery.

 

Exactly...just imagine how many more people would die if NATUROPATHS were running our medical system! Hahaha!!!

[The Law]

I think lilly may have been referring to medical errors - which are astonishingly not rare at all.

 

"The statistics in the IOM report, which were based on two large studies, suggest that medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death among Americans..."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/06/09/med_errors040609.html

 

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

 

However, these are honest mistakes - usually due to a flaw in the system, rather than incompetence or quackery.

 

Edit: Law, lol...nice sig ---> "You may be abcwxyz but I'm the Rest.of.the.Alphabet." -Rest.of.the.Alphabet

 

That amused me the first time I read that....that guy/girl signed up just to harass abcwxyz...lol

 

Lol, don't thank me... thank Rest.of.the.Alphabet.

 

And yes, I didn't mean that our system does not have flaws, but that deaths due to complete doctor incompetence aren't extremely common. Undoubtedly, many problems do result because of mistakes made by physicians... but I think if NDs are completely treating patients on their own, this will result in an exacerbation of the problem.

 

Exactly...just imagine how many more people would die if NATUROPATHS were running our medical system! Hahaha!!!

 

Oh dear.

[Lillylee]

haha yeah, I was referring to medical errors, and I didn't mean to say they were extremely common, but that they did occur (my bad for being so unspecific ).

 

I do agree that allowing naturopaths to prescribe could end up a tragedy... I guess what I was really trying to get across was that we shouldn't make that an excuse to be stinging and cruel (there is a way to express objection in a mature way), especially before we've seen exactly what the impact is, and exactly how much they are planning on utilizing this new right.

 

Since one of their original reasons to want to prescribe is because so many of their "natural" products were made Rx-only, why don't they just allow them limited prescribing rights?? I don't see why they should have access to prescribing all prescription meds (especially since that's not even in their belief-system).

[blaaaax]

2 quick notes:

 

- I view naturopaths much as I view chiropractors. There is such a wide range of practitioners out there in both these areas that it is hard to pigeon-hole. IN either case some operate within the scope of what they can handle (and what is evidence-based, to a certain extent) while others try to be heroes (be it through subluxations or chelation therapy, same crap). Maybe this increase in capability will also bring an increase in regulation of practices? (although I am doubtful....)

 

- Remember that dentists also have the power to prescribe whatever they want, but they don't because they know that they have no business distributing antiretrovirals (for instance). Perhaps this is why they not allowing NDs to order labs? The really telling data will come in a year or two, when it becomes apparent what drugs naturopaths are now prescribing.

[leviathan]

2 quick notes:

 

- I view naturopaths much as I view chiropractors. There is such a wide range of practitioners out there in both these areas that it is hard to pigeon-hole. IN either case some operate within the scope of what they can handle (and what is evidence-based, to a certain extent) while others try to be heroes (be it through subluxations or chelation therapy, same crap). Maybe this increase in capability will also bring an increase in regulation of practices? (although I am doubtful....)

 

- Remember that dentists also have the power to prescribe whatever they want, but they don't because they know that they have no business distributing antiretrovirals (for instance). Perhaps this is why they not allowing NDs to order labs? The really telling data will come in a year or two, when it becomes apparent what drugs naturopaths are now prescribing.

 

It's scary but I think pharmacists will now have an ethical obligation to start interviewing any patients who come in with a naturoquack prescription, to make sure that the prescription is appropriate and they aren't being harmed.

[da_birdie]

I wonder if drug reps will start visiting naturopath's offices.

With their freshly acquired (yet under-trained) prescribing power, perhaps they will be more easily influenced by big pharma compared to MDs?

I doubt the big pharma will distinguish between advertising to naturopaths vs MDs. The ultimate goal is to get as much prescriptions/sales as possible.

 

(I am sure the naturopaths already got plenty of visits from the natural-product reps, with a much more intimate relationship (ie. much less integrity than the MD-pharma relationship) as the naturopaths profit directly from sales of such "natural products")

 

Will they also have samples of birth control pills/blood pressure meds/antidepressant/antibiotics/viagra/cialis in the cupboard, like in a family physician's office?

 

Hmm.

 

I just hope in those CME presentation/dinners I won't have to sit (and argue) with the naturopathic crew~!

[leviathan]

I just hope in those CME presentation/dinners I won't have to sit (and argue) with the naturopathic crew~!

You gotta admit, it would make for a more interesting evening! I'd just sit back with a bag of popcorn and wait for the fighting to begin.

[da_birdie]

You gotta admit, it would make for a more interesting evening! I'd just sit back with a bag of popcorn and wait for the fighting to begin.

 

Oh you won't want to fight This Naturopath. "Medical Director for Revolution Fight Team" and previous "Ringside physician for BC Amateur Boxing Association".

 

Btw, check out some of those info tabs on the left of his website!

[Jochi1543]

Oh you won't want to fight This Naturopath. "Medical Director for Revolution Fight Team" and previous "Ringside physician for BC Amateur Boxing Association".

 

Btw, check out some of those info tabs on the left of his website!

 

WTF, I'm pretty sure AABA (Alberta Boxing) requires one to have an MD to be a ringside physician. I mean, what would he do if a fighter got an epidural hemorrhage or something? Stuff some cinnamon leaves in his mouth?

[Briarpatch]

It may be of some interest to know that ND's have had very broad prescribing rights and scope of practice including minor surgery in Oregon and Washington for many years where they enjoy an excellent safety record. This scope of practice reflects the training they receive and their safety record in those states is a testament to it as well.

 

Also, the notion that naturopathic medicine is not science based is ignorant of science. Simply dig into the massive research database on natural medicine and I think you may be surprised. The list of natural medicines that are as effective as their pharmaceutical counterparts is long. And, they come with much less baggage in the form of side effects.

 

To sit on the high horse of allopathic medicine is precarious when you consider that much of what is done in day to day allopathic practice is not well researched or proven. How do you even begin to preach about patient safety when, according to the BMJ and JAMA, accessing conventional medicine is the third leading cause of death. By extrapolation, as many as 50 000 Canadians die annually as a direct result of allopathic intervention. Looking outward with reactionary responses like I have read on this thread is dangerous when you neglect to look in the mirror.

 

If you are truly motivated by science then you cannot ignore the effectiveness and safety of naturopathic medicine even when it includes prescribing rights and a broad scope of practice. Perhaps much of the strong reaction found on this thread are motivated by less altruistic forces than patient safety and scientific validity.

[Dr.Cave]

 

Will they also have samples of birth control pills/blood pressure meds/antidepressant/antibiotics/viagra/cialis in the cupboard, like in a family physician's office?

 

 

Brings up an interesting thought. For all the idiots out there who believe the BS spewed on natural health products I bet you a very very low percentage by the bull**** enough to actually use natural products instead of oral contraceptives.

[leviathan]

It may be of some interest to know that ND's have had very broad prescribing rights and scope of practice including minor surgery in Oregon and Washington for many years where they enjoy an excellent safety record. This scope of practice reflects the training they receive and their safety record in those states is a testament to it as well.

Safe according to what statistics or proof? You can't just say something and expect us to believe you, especially when you're an unknown quantity.

 

Also, the notion that naturopathic medicine is not science based is ignorant of science. Simply dig into the massive research database on natural medicine and I think you may be surprised. The list of natural medicines that are as effective as their pharmaceutical counterparts is long. And, they come with much less baggage in the form of side effects.

Yeah, I TOTALLY remember reading in NEJM last month about how massaging carotid arteries is more effective than tPA at treating strokes, or how placing asthmatic patients in a bath of hydrogen peroxide is more efficient than CPAP + beta agonists, or how St. John's wort is more effective than the triple cocktail at managing HIV infection. By the way, the former are all treatments recommended by heads of naturopath associations. These are not just rare oddballs, but head representatives of the naturopath profession.

 

To sit on the high horse of allopathic medicine is precarious when you consider that much of what is done in day to day allopathic practice is not well researched or proven. How do you even begin to preach about patient safety when, according to the BMJ and JAMA, accessing conventional medicine is the third leading cause of death.

More unfounded BS. If naturopaths were running the show, we'd still have a life expectancy in the 50-60 year range.

 

By extrapolation, as many as 50 000 Canadians die annually as a direct result of allopathic intervention. Looking outward with reactionary responses like I have read on this thread is dangerous when you neglect to look in the mirror.

And I'm sure those 50,000 canadians would still be alive if they went to Naturopaths to cure their complicated medical conditions and comorbidities? Give me a break!

 

If you are truly motivated by science then you cannot ignore the effectiveness and safety of naturopathic medicine even when it includes prescribing rights and a broad scope of practice. Perhaps much of the strong reaction found on this thread are motivated by less altruistic forces than patient safety and scientific validity.

I think we're all pretty furious when a naturoquack comes on our boards and tries to tell US that we're promoting unsafe conditions. Go back to giving accupuncture to your septic patients and get back to me when they all die, and tell me that you are looking out for "patient safety".

[leviathan]

WTF, I'm pretty sure AABA (Alberta Boxing) requires one to have an MD to be a ringside physician. I mean, what would he do if a fighter got an epidural hemorrhage or something? Stuff some cinnamon leaves in his mouth?

Do you think a naturoquack even knows what an epidural hemorrhage is? I think they probably missed that lecture in between chelation therapy and learning about how toxins are the cause of every disease known to mankind (including intracranial hematomas).

[xylem29]

It may be of some interest to know that ND's have had very broad prescribing rights and scope of practice including minor surgery in Oregon and Washington for many years where they enjoy an excellent safety record. This scope of practice reflects the training they receive and their safety record in those states is a testament to it as well.

 

Also, the notion that naturopathic medicine is not science based is ignorant of science. Simply dig into the massive research database on natural medicine and I think you may be surprised. The list of natural medicines that are as effective as their pharmaceutical counterparts is long. And, they come with much less baggage in the form of side effects.

 

To sit on the high horse of allopathic medicine is precarious when you consider that much of what is done in day to day allopathic practice is not well researched or proven. How do you even begin to preach about patient safety when, according to the BMJ and JAMA, accessing conventional medicine is the third leading cause of death. By extrapolation, as many as 50 000 Canadians die annually as a direct result of allopathic intervention. Looking outward with reactionary responses like I have read on this thread is dangerous when you neglect to look in the mirror.

 

If you are truly motivated by science then you cannot ignore the effectiveness and safety of naturopathic medicine even when it includes prescribing rights and a broad scope of practice. Perhaps much of the strong reaction found on this thread are motivated by less altruistic forces than patient safety and scientific validity.

 

My pharmacology professor would find this statement funny - especially the part about having less side-effects.

[A-Stark]

It may be of some interest to know that ND's have had very broad prescribing rights and scope of practice including minor surgery in Oregon and Washington for many years where they enjoy an excellent safety record. This scope of practice reflects the training they receive and their safety record in those states is a testament to it as well.

 

What sort of hospital practicums do they have and what kind of patients do they see? Anyone with a serious illness or just the worried well?

 

Also, the notion that naturopathic medicine is not science based is ignorant of science. Simply dig into the massive research database on natural medicine and I think you may be surprised. The list of natural medicines that are as effective as their pharmaceutical counterparts is long. And, they come with much less baggage in the form of side effects.

 

Pharmacology is a science, and all "natural" medicines are subject to it. Take St. John's Wort, for example, which does indeed have anti-depressant effect, but which will interfere with a wide variety of other drugs. Notably, it can lead to subtherapeutic levels of anti-retrovirals - dangerous, to say the least, in an HIV patient. Ginseng can cause vaginal bleeding and mastalgia, CNS stimulation (insomnia, nervousness), and hypertension. Echinacea can cause flu-like symptoms (fever, shivering, headache, vomiting).

 

To sit on the high horse of allopathic medicine is precarious when you consider that much of what is done in day to day allopathic practice is not well researched or proven. How do you even begin to preach about patient safety when, according to the BMJ and JAMA, accessing conventional medicine is the third leading cause of death. By extrapolation, as many as 50 000 Canadians die annually as a direct result of allopathic intervention. Looking outward with reactionary responses like I have read on this thread is dangerous when you neglect to look in the mirror.

 

I would strongly discourage the use of the term "allopathic" which was a pejorative term used by the founder of homeopathy to denigrate the state of medicine in the early 19th century (not that his criticisms were invalid at the time). However, having moved beyond bloodletting, purging, and the era when "anaethesia" consisted of a shot of whisky, I think it's safe to say that medicine is a hell of a lot better.

 

If you are truly motivated by science then you cannot ignore the effectiveness and safety of naturopathic medicine even when it includes prescribing rights and a broad scope of practice. Perhaps much of the strong reaction found on this thread are motivated by less altruistic forces than patient safety and scientific validity.

 

Yeah, right - I'm interested to see the studies showing that hydrotherapy and homeopathy are efficacious.

 

Anyway, what's up with these threads attracting naturopathic apologists/trolls?

[coastalslacker]

This forum is referenced in the "comments" to the CBC online article from last week. I suspect that is where the "naturopathic apologists" come from.

[ToHellInAHandbasket]

My pharmacology professor would find this statement funny - especially the part about having less side-effects.

 

 

*If* (and only if) it's true that "50,000" die from allopathic medicine, one should ask how many would die *without it*?

 

We all know that "natural" substances can have side effects or be toxic, and there is less research and standardization regulating alt med products. And obviously we all know that anything effective has the potential for side effects. And that includes so called 'natural' substances.

 

Bovine/pig insulin, which can still be obtained in Canada (technically 'natural') and/or thyroid hormone can cause serious side effects if the dosages are incorrect. Will NDs be able to prescribe these 'natural hormones' with their current level of training and/or a 3 credit (or whatever it is) pharmaceutical course???? I find that hard to believe. I'm fine with them 'prescribing' vitamins, safe supplements, herbs, probiotics, digestive enzymes, etc. but beyond that...

 

P.S. Sorry for posting here as a pre-med, I just clicked on the topic from the main forum....

[Alex2]

How many people are not at their 100% or are injured or even die because they don't say or are not asked about the vitamins and «natural» medecine they take by their doctor and pharmacist? ND don't know enough about drug interaction. And with natural medecine, it is as dangerous as any medecine: drug interaction, side effets which can be serious, overdose, etc. Also, you don't give any drugs for any disease.

[RobynM]

How many people are not at their 100% or are injured or even die because they don't say or are not asked about the vitamins and «natural» medecine they take by their doctor and pharmacist? .

 

But who's at fault in that situation? It's a fact that in society today more and more people are taking a variety of natural supplements and/or vitamins. These may or may not be "prescribed" by a ND. If the doctor or pharmacist fail to ask the patient about these supplements and therefore prescribe something with interactions isn't the blame on the doctor or pharmacist?

[da_birdie]

Anyway, what's up with these threads attracting naturopathic apologists/trolls?

 

Actually, I am pleased that this thread (and it's main thread over at primary care residencies section) is drawing comments from a couple naturopaths/pro-naturopaths and also a lay person or two. If you google "BC naturopath prescribing", premed101 actually ranks #1 while BC Naturopathic Asso. ranks #2!

 

Rather than having the battle of science- vs faith-based medicine fought at the CBC comment sections (where the naturopathic/homeopathic practitioners/sympathisers actively spread misinformation in an effort to justify and promote their business to the unwary public), why not utilize this forum to rationally discuss/debate these issues. At least the commenters here are comprised of science-minded aspiring physicians/medical students, plus some residents and practicing physicians such as myself.

 

It is frustrating whenever I browse the comment section of CBC Health news section and see that it's flooded with anti-vaccination/anti-medication/pro-detox/pro-homeopath/pro-faith-based medicine comments. If they really feel confident enough, they should have no problem carrying on their arguments in a forum such as this. I'm actually suprised to see only a couple pro-naturopaths commenting here. Perhaps they're shunning (and probably cursing) this place like they do with Quackwatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch).

 

It would be nice if there is a Canadian forum run by physicians to discuss...healthcare. Premed101 is already great, but as the forum title suggests, it aims to promote interaction mainly between premed/med students. I think Canada can use more unity/leadership among practicing physicians.

[Icebox]

May have already been posted here but... http://blog.vitummedicinus.com/2009/04/first-do-no-harmunless-you-havent-gone.html

[ethanre]

What I am reading is a lot of paranoia, fear, arrogance and ignorance by the allopathic doctors or med students. You need to research the ND programs better, and accept the limitations and failures of allopathic medicine.

 

I am not an ND nor an MD student, i have had chronic illnesses in my family, every single allopathic doctor that was sought failed to help. Naturopathic medicine doctors however did help and "alternative medicine" did work. So much for your drugs.

[A-Stark]

Any particular reason you felt the need to post that three times? NDs are certainly useful for those with a vague sense of unease or a touch of the nerves or just more money than sense, but I look forward to some peer-reviewed studies suggesting the efficacy of "naturopathic" treatment. You're not going to start promoting homeopathy at this point, right?