On Considering Alternative Medicine
Serving on a State Commission

Kimball Atwood, M.D., represents the Medical Society on a state commission examining the use of alternative medicine practitioners. The following report reflects his experience as a member of that commission.

Would you believe . . .

• Measuring the skin's resistance to a tiny electric current "can test for parasites, food and environmental sensitivities, candida, nutritional deficiencies and much more"?
• "Acute hepatitis is one of the easiest diseases for vitamin C to cure"?
• "The greatest promise of St. John's wort . . . may be in the treatment of AIDS"?

If these assertions come as a surprise to you, welcome to the world of "naturopathy." Naturopaths have their origins in 19th century Germany, but they have existed in small numbers in the U.S. for more than 100 years. They believe in vitalism, "water cures," colonic "cleansing," and other quaint but dangerous prescientific notions.

In the wake of the recent apparent surge of public interest in alternative methods, naturopaths have attempted to assert their validity not through the requisite scientific investigations, but through politics.

A small group of naturopaths, who refer to themselves as "naturopathic physicians" or "naturopathic doctors" (N.D.s), seeks licensure in Massachusetts. These naturopaths claim to be primary care physicians and to be adequately trained for this calling. They state that they have learned the same basic sciences as medical students and that their methods have been scientifically validated. They view their scope of practice as covering every aspect of medical care except trauma and major surgery. The following is from the website of the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Ore., one of the four schools of naturopathic medicine in the U.S.:

Naturopathic doctors (N.D.s) are primary care physicians, most of whom are in general private practice. They are trained to be the doctor first seen by the patient for general healthcare, for advice on keeping healthy, and for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic conditions.

If this gives you pause, you are justified: In a 1999 survey, only 40 percent of polled Massachusetts naturopaths said that they would refer a two-week-old infant with a temperature of 101^oF for definitive medical care. Only 20 percent said that they would recommend childhood immunizations to parents.

The quotations above belie any claim to scientific understanding or validity.

For several years, your Medical Society has been fighting licensure efforts by naturopaths in Massachusetts. Last year, through friends in the legislature, naturopaths managed to establish a Commission to Study Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners. Its real purpose — to shepherd the formation of a self-regulating licensing board for naturopaths — is reflected in the Commission membership, which is dominated by advocates.

The Commission has almost finished its deliberations. Although the evidence presented was overwhelming in its indictment of naturopathic claims of validity, it appears that the Commission will issue a majority report favoring licensure. There will also be a report in opposition to licensing. In addition to the MMS and the Board of Registration in Medicine, Sen. Richard Moore (Senate chairman Health Care Committee) and Rep. Susan Pope are likely signatories of the opposition report.

The Medical Society's opposition has nothing to do with "turf protection" and everything to do with rational health care and public safety. State licensing of a profession inevitably leads to increased public acceptance of the services offered by that profession. In health care, this implies that the government assures the validity of the claims made by the profession.

The legislature has, in the past, refused to pass a licensing bill for naturopaths. It's frightening, however, to think that naturopaths may be given a formal endorsement to practice "medicine" in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It has been particularly rewarding to represent the MMS in this endeavor. The Society has demonstrated its commitment to rational medicine throughout the process.

– Kimball Atwood, M.D.

Letter to the Editor on this issue