Ontario just became the second province to give naturopaths prescribing rights

[da_birdie]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/10/22/f-naturopaths-get-prescribing-rights.html#socialcomments

 

Ontario just became the second province in Canada to get the green light for increased prescribing rights for naturopaths. British Columbia granted its naturopaths the right to prescribe a greater number of medications — as well as high-dose vitamins, amino acids, hormones, botanicals and herbs — in April 2009.

 

The announcement follows the granting of more powers to other health professionals, such as midwives and registered nurses.

 

On Oct. 20, the province's standing committee on social policy voted to amend Ontario's Naturopathy Act through Bill 179, allowing naturopaths in the province to prescribe, dispense compound or sell a drug listed in the regulations.

 

The bill is expected to be approved by the end of the year.

 

(One response from a MD in the comments section)

 

The naturopath in this photo has the BP cuff on upside down.

 

I'm a doctor; naturopaths aren't doctors. Going to school for an extra four years and paying a whole bunch of money doesn't make you a doctor.

 

Medicine is a science, and, as such, mandates an evidence-based approach. Saw palmetto might work for benign prostatic hyperplasia. If you believe that, you have to test it. If it works, then it's a legitimate medicine. If it doesn't work, and you prescribe it to your patients anyway, you're a quack, not a doctor.

 

There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. There is medicine that works; there is medicine that doesn't. The difference distinguishes doctors from naturopaths.

 

Ms. Shainhouse-Kerr's plea, "If we had a wider scope of practice, it would lessen the burden on our congested medical system.", is a thin veil of her naked professional ambition to creep from the field of quackery onto the legitimate territory of modern medicine.

 

There's already a huge problem of antibiotic resistance, and extending prescribing rights to quacks is asking for an epidemic.

 

BC was the first

[NLengr]

This is driven by money on both sides, not concern for public health.

 

The ND's want to become for profit primary health providers in addition to snake oil salesman, despite the fact that they have less training in real medicine than a 3rd year medical student. The govt. of Ontario is hoping people will be foolish enough to use their ND to manage real medical issues, and thus not have to pay OHIP fees to a real physician. The only person who gets screwed is the poor sucker who thinks that an ND is anywhere near qualified to prescribe real medications.

[moo]

What I find ironic is that NDs claim to be "natural" yet they all want a part of the "non-natural" pie. If you really claim to be "natural" then why do you want to prescribe pharmaceuticals???? Isn't that what you are precisely against?!?

[AdamP]

they took errr jobs!

[KennethToronto]

Oh wow...here we go again. Now in Ontario!

[rogerroger]

I would love to see the CMA and our related organizations doing more within the framework of the CANMEDS competencies to spur on the training of a new generation of politician-physicians.

 

Perhaps we need more physicians operating at the highest decision making levels. Also I think there is a need to put greater effort in communicating our stance on the differences between allopathic and naturopathic medicine. Clearly, whatever we are doing now is not enough. How much does the average patient (or average politican) know about naturopathic med from a non-naturopath source?

 

To a certain extent I cannot help but wounder if the decisions made in BC and now ONT are failure of our professional organizations to communicate allopathic medicine's view point on this matter to policy makers.

 

Also I would love to see some sort of evidence which clearly shows giving ND's prescribing rights leads to greater positive health outcomes. We cannot be the first place in the world to go down this road, right? Without such data the gov is in my view is blindly handing out the legal authority to potentially compromise ones health. Does anyone know if any sort of evidence based approach is being used when considering the expansion of prescribing rights?

 

If there is solid evidence from an unbiased source describing such a prescribing policy as a real means to improve health in a manner which could not be achieved by primary care MD's, then sure, let them prescribe. But really the whole concept of having a ND prescribe is bizarre to me. They seem to no longer really be naturopaths the moment they start ordering stuff made by pharmaceutical companies...