Medical Society Opposes Bill to License Naturopaths

A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would set standards for licensing of naturopathic “doctors.”

The Pennsylvania Medical Society does not support this bill because it recognizes the practice of naturopathic medicine.

House Bill 1784 was introduced June 29, 2009, by Rep. Joseph Petrarca (D-Armstrong).

 “There can be large differences among naturopathic providers and a lack of scientific data and documentation of the safety and efficacy of naturopathic processes,” Pennsylvania Medical Society Past President Peter S. Lund, MD, testified on a similar bill in 2007.

Most states, including all states bordering Pennsylvania, do not license naturopaths.

Add Your Comments


The Pennsylvania Medical Society encourages lively debate, but please behave courteously and responsibly. Comments that include profanity, personal attacks (including language that could potentially identify an individual), or any other inappropriate, offensive, or illegal material will be removed. For more information, please see our Terms of Use.

Display name as (optional):

Comments (max 2000 characters):




Comments: 5


I've tried to look at this bill objectively and realistically since an ever increasing percentage of the population uses some form of CAM. I've also done some research on naturopathic training, their scope of practice in other jurisdictions and the methodology of naturopathic practice. My concerns are too many to address in this forum, but I think I must address, at least, their proposed scope of practice here. I just don't see allowing them to perform minor surgery and remove foreign bodies from soft tissues as not practicing medicine. What makes these procedures naturopathic? There definitely seems to be an attempt, in this regard, to unnecessarily broaden their scope of practice in order to lend some legitimacy to their profession. However, how do you justify the creation and maintenance of an entire profession by taking "clippings" of other established professions and combining them into a purported distinct form of medicine? Also, how is allowing naturopaths to perform physical exams and order lab tests and diagnostic studies not practicing medicine? As far as I know there are no strictly "naturopathic" assays, blood chemistries or x-rays. This is overkill because, in general, there is no need to specifically monitor over-the-counter medications, vitamins or herbals (which naturopaths claim have no side effects). This is why these agents have been approved for general use. So, on the one hand, these products are not dangerous yet on the other hand, there needs to be a new profession duly licensed to prescribe, dispense and monitor these therapies in order to protect the public. Speaking of public safety, if naturopaths are allowed to order these tests and discover some MEDICAL abnormality, what are they to do then? From the literature, some suggest that they would refer to a more qualified professional. But, they are not adequately trained in differential diagnosis anyway, so how can we trust they will even recognize that they should refer?

Concerned citizen at 2/24/2010 2:13:22 AM


The fact that the "practice" of naturopathic medicine is largely unscientific is only one aspect of why they should not be liscensed. Honestly, why are they automatically offended by anyone who asks them to prove that their treatments (natural or otherwise)actually work? Their questionable philosophies notwithstanding, the small amount of credible advice and therapies they do offer (i.e diet, exercise and vitamins) are largely common sense, don't require sophisticated medical supervision and do not require any extensive training to understand? In fact, the entire credible aspect of naturopathy is likely encompassed by any physician, nurse, PA or pharmacist practice. Naturopaths are simply seeking a means to have their "services" legitimized and subsequently covered by insurance. What's interesting to me is the fact that naturopaths claim to practice a distinct form of medicine yet they seek to obtain so called conventional practice rights (i.e. prescriptive authority, minor surgery etc.)and insist their training is comparable to that of traditional medical doctors every chance they get. Sounds a lot like trying to practice medicine without having to endure the requisite medical training. That is just dangerous! Also, I just love the argument that oppossing licensure of naturopaths limits citizens' ability to choose their healthcare provider. How? If certain people have been utilizing the services of NDs for so long, then continue to do so. They have not been licensed up to this point (with no untoward effects on the public), so why is it necessary now? As far as I can tell, there is no danger to the public in the capacity in which naturopaths currently practice. A previous commenter even confirmed this when he stated that he has lots of experience with them, obviously unlicensed. If a patient is so devout in his belief in naturopathy, then he should have no problem continuing to pay for these services himself.

anonymous at 2/21/2010 3:55:47 PM


As with other forms of health care currently being debated, I would very much prefer to have a choice in who I see as a practitioner. I have more than 30 years of very, very positive experience with naturopaths and other "alternative" medicine. Therefore, I agree with Kevin's comment: "Estabish a board of naturopathic medicine to regulate the profession the same as all the other professions in Pennsylvania. That is how we protect the public." But, please, do not treat me as a child who cannot make decisions for myself. At 62, I am capable of judging when practitioner knows his or her stuff. Believe me, I have walked out of the offices of so-called regular doctors when I realized that they were (a) guessing, (b) just plain wrong.

Joan at 1/5/2010 12:12:20 PM


What a joke the Pa Med Society has no concern for the public. The regulation of Naturopaths by their own board of medicine is the key. This is more of a political move by the Pa Med Society to block the practice of naturopathic medicine. It's already being practiced in the state underground. Why not protect the public by getting out of the way so this law can eventually pass.

Robert at 1/1/2010 12:04:11 AM


It is the concern of the Pennsylvania Medical Society about the large differences among naturopathic providers that is at the heart of why naturopathic providers need to be licensed. The only way to take steps toward protecting the public from poorly educated naturopaths is to regulate naturopathic medicine via licensure. If we can get past protectionist psychology and the skepticism which naturally accompanies ignorance, then the answer if obvious: Estabish a board of naturopathic medicine to regulate the profession the same as all the other professions in Pennsylvania. That is how we protect the public. Regarding safety and efficacy, naturopathic doctors must be given a scope of practice adequate enough to be responsible at least to the PCP level as they are in other states where their practice acts have been modernized, such as Washington, Arizona, and Oregon. These are the states which have set the modern standard for naturopathic medicine, and should be used by Pennsylvania as a template for a law. The rest is just politics. The fact that some naturopaths choose to do some questionable things is no reason to through the baby out with the bath water. Those doctors can be dealt with by the naturopathic board the same way other medical boards deal with their bad apples. While the money will never be there to provide the same research rigor that is required of new drugs, there is plenty of science to support most established naturopathic practices, especially when integrated to some degree with conventional medicine.

Kevin at 10/27/2009 6:31:58 PM

Last Updated: 9/15/2009
From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: