Hello, all,

I am asking that someone take over as moderator of this group.  I am
too busy dealing with my other group, NaturopathicChat, to be
responsible for this group.  If no one takes over, we may have to
close the list, which would be a terrible shame.  The workload is
MINIMAL.  You basically just have to approve or disapprove folks
trying to join the list.  That's it.  Generally, that means putting in
about five minutes a MONTH of work.  While being so minimal, it's too
much for me as I already put in 30-60 minutes  a day on NatChat.

THANKS!

Mona

Nicely done Sir William!   Getting excited!     Big Grin,    Julie,
C.D. (cruise director)
On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:51 PM, wfranklin_4 wrote:

> Announcing the 4th Annual Naturopathic Gathering!
>
>  November 2-4, 2007
>
>  Hosted by Bastyr University
>  4p on Fri to 4p on Sun
>  Cost to students $75; ND's $125 (CE's)
>  Housing options include student hosts (contact info on its way) and
>  hotel (group rate info on its way)
>  I'll have a copy of the registration form soon.
>  The speaker list is impressive! Waiting for a couple of
>  verifications and then I'll post em!
>
>  REGISTRATION FORM below...
>
>
>
>  For those who are wondering what this is...
>
>  ... The Naturopathic Gathering began at SCNM 4 years ago as the
>  brainchild of students, Randy Spicer and Joe Holcomb of the
>  Naturopathic Society, with the intention of bringing our profession's
>  elders (doctors who have been in practice 15 or more years) to the
>  College to pass on the clinical theory, philosophy and practice of
>  Naturopathic Medicine. It quickly grew to become our profession's
>  premiere philosophy "conference". As was said on the flyer for last
>  year's Gathering at NCNM, "This is not just another conference, it is
>  a celebration of our medicine!"
>
>
>
>  Stay tuned for more information as the quarter moves along.
>
>  William Franklin
>  The Naturopathic Gathering Co-chair
>
>  November 2 - 4, 2007
>  At Bastyr University, Seattle WA
>  Registration Form
>
>  Name: ___________________________________________
>  Address: _________________________________________
>  _________________________________________________
>  Phone Number: ___________________________________
>  Email: ___________________________________________
>  School Affiliation: _________________________________
>  Year of Graduation: _________________________
>  Payment Method: Check or Money Order
>  Check or Money Order Number: _______________
>  Do you need assistance finding accommodations? Yes No
>  If yes, be sure to include your e-mail address with your registration
>  form. We will contact you via e-mail with available housing options.
>
>  Please make checks payable to: Bastyr University (The Gathering)
>  $20 Non sufficient fee for bounced checks
>
>  Mail Registration form along with payment of $125 for Doctors (The
>  slightly higher fee is to accommodate processing of CE credits)
>  $75 for Students, 1st year grads, and members of the public to:
>
>  Bastyr University
>  Attention Silva Bedoyan, Student Affairs
>  14500 Juanita Drive NE
>  Kenmore, WA 98028-4966
>
>
>

Announcing the 4th Annual Naturopathic Gathering!

November 2-4, 2007

Hosted by Bastyr University
4p on Fri to 4p on Sun
Cost to students $75; ND's $125 (CE's)
Housing options include student hosts (contact info on its way) and
hotel (group rate info on its way)
I'll have a copy of the registration form soon.
The speaker list is impressive!  Waiting for a couple of
verifications and then I'll post em!

REGISTRATION FORM below...



For those who are wondering what this is...

... The Naturopathic Gathering began at SCNM 4 years ago as the
brainchild of students, Randy Spicer and Joe Holcomb of the
Naturopathic Society, with the intention of bringing our profession's
elders (doctors who have been in practice 15 or more years) to the
College to pass on the clinical theory, philosophy and practice of
Naturopathic Medicine.  It quickly grew to become our profession's
premiere philosophy "conference".   As was said on the flyer for last
year's Gathering at NCNM, "This is not just another conference, it is
a celebration of our medicine!"



Stay tuned for more information as the quarter moves along.

William Franklin
The Naturopathic Gathering Co-chair










November 2 - 4, 2007
At Bastyr University, Seattle WA
Registration Form

Name: ___________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Phone Number: ___________________________________
Email: ___________________________________________
School Affiliation: _________________________________
		 Year of Graduation: _________________________
Payment Method:  Check or Money Order
Check or Money Order Number: _______________
Do you need assistance finding accommodations?  Yes    No
If yes, be sure to include your e-mail address with your registration
form. We will contact you via e-mail with available housing options.

Please make checks payable to: Bastyr University (The Gathering)
$20 Non sufficient fee for bounced checks

Mail Registration form along with payment of $125 for Doctors (The
slightly higher fee is to accommodate processing of CE credits)
$75 for Students, 1st year grads, and members of the public to:

Bastyr University
Attention Silva Bedoyan, Student Affairs
14500 Juanita Drive NE
Kenmore, WA 98028-4966

Change requires the courage

to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice

what you are for what you could become.

Author ~unknown

Well, if we apply a tool to cure the unhealthy...What makes us any different than any other doctor?  Do we promote cure?  Isn't it really the patients own body that does the work?  Do we attempt to remove the obstacles and watch the vis in action? 

 

No, I don't personally believe that we are learning the Vis.  I think that we attempt to understand that amazing force called the Vis...but, it seems like saying that we are learning God/Goddess/Whatever higher power that you believe in.  Do you learn God?   It is my thought that we are learning the aspects of health, variations from health, and nature that are tangible to us...I emphasize tangible.  What do we do?....Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph, and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that amazing vis?).

 

Are these just semantics?  Or, are they fundamental philosophical concepts that we should be questioning and seeking answers for?

 

I'll end with a statement that may cause some discomfort...Do I run a battery of tests, treat lab values as the end all be all, throw a bunch of supplements at a patient, and cause cure? Is that really any different that the allopathic model?  Also, something I observed alot in private practices, but not actually on site while in school...when was the last time you asked a patient on your initial intake, "do you have a spiritual connection?, what is is?, how do you feel about this?" 

 

I respect and honor your words...and thank you for being the only one to join the discussion thus far.

Peace and Light~MaryK

 

 

 

On 6/13/07, moehabbahoo <moehabbahoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello,

I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to
promote cure and health in our patients. So we use these tools
(homeopathy, manipulation, nutrition, hydrotherapy, mind body
medicine, etc)to accomplish our mission to cure the unhealthy.

As far as the phrase "learning the vis", in my inexperienced
experience, I have not heard people using that phrase. As doctors in
training are we not trying to learn the vis anyway? I don't find this
controversial at all, it is what we are doing.

tom

--
Dr. MaryK Martin Geyer, NMD
naturecure@gmail.com
(480-221-7485)

Humankind has not woven the web of life.  We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.  All things are bound together.  All things connect. ~Chief Seattle, 1854

Hello, MaryK,

I'm not quite sure I understand your philosophical conundrums, but I
will try to answer your email anyway.  I guess my view is a little
different from some of the others who have already quite impressively
put down their opinions.  I probably would not consider myself to be a
philosopher, but I like reading about them.  ;-)


>  Do I really believe that I have the power to cure... am I really so
>  pompous as to believe that I can CURE a patient and this is my high
>  and only mission?

Yes, I am so pompous to believe I can work with a patient to remove
obstacles to cure and stimulate their VMN in a patient, thus enabling
them to heal and be cured.  I have helped thousands of patients heal
up/be cured from conditions both acute and chronic. That is why I
became a naturopathic physician; to help patients heal.  I have been
cured myself by NDs I sought treatment from.  I do believe I have the
experience and knowledge, the compassion and caring, to help many
people be cured of the conditions that plague them.

We can take this discussion to all sorts of spiritual levels, and
wonder if we are truly healing folks on a spiritual plane if we simply
help them cure their strep throat without antibiotics.  Frankly, I am
not that emotionally involved in wondering if my patient, now, say,
completely free of asthma, will now be able to elevate their karmic
status so they don't have to return to this plane of suffering in their
next reincarnation.  Although, I think Maslow did have it right, that
elevating a person's quality of life by removing disease does much more
easily allow patients to focus on spiritual concerns.  Of course, my
atheist patients don't care about that at all.

Patients do not generally come to me asking me to help them feel closer
to God, or to help them realize we are all truly a vibrating spectrum
of light, drops of an endless God, and that this physical existence
does not truly exist.  (The few patients who have done so have felt
much better when given some B-complex.) ;-)  I am not a spiritual
counselor; I am a doctor.  I work physically/mental/emotionally with
patients in 99.5% of patients and my goal is to work with them to
institute a protocol which will cure them of their chief complaint.
>
>
>
>  Okay, so I won't wait for another discussion...I'll throw it out now.
>  How often do we hear people state that they are stimulating the vital
>  force...or learning the vis? I have a hard time with statements like
>  these that are thrown around without so much as a thought (yes, I am
>  intentionally using harsh language to get everyone's juices
>  running :)). Do I really believe that I can stimulate the vital
>  force? Or do we just clumsily move around and try to tweak whatever
>  we can in the physical realm, while the vital force channels that
>  amazing Vis? And back to that statement "learning the vis"...um, did
>  I miss that class in school? The class where we were able to
>  transcend all of our humanness and physical ties to this existence
>  and actually learn about the intricacies of something that has no
>  boundaries and follows no rules.

I have never heard anyone say they are "Learning the Vis", but I feel
very comfortable saying I stimulate the Vis. I DO stimulate the Vis in
patients.   I don't understand why that is a difficult phrase for you.
Don't sleep for two days, drink a ton of coffee and alcohol, eat only
Twinkies, don't exercise, gain 60 pounds, and see how your life energy
feels.  Then, sleep eight solid hours, exercise, eat whole organic
foods, and drink only water, laugh heartily,  and see how your life
energy feels.  The former lowers the VMN and the latter stimulates it;
we promote the latter in naturopathic medicine.  This is a fairly
simple understanding of things in our profession, so I must somehow be
missing your existential angst.

I do not believe, as a physician, I am clumsily stumbling around with
my patients.  Then again, I am an elder, and have much more confidence
in my work with patients. I think some of these concerns you have are
due to the fact you are a newbie grad, have little experience and are
just working hard to establish protocols you can trust. You have not
seen naturopathic medicine cure that many patients.  Give it a couple
of years and I think your questions here will be quite solidly
resolved.  Not due to ego, as I do not believe I am egotistical or
arrogant, but simply by seeing your compassion, caring, knowledge and
protocols lead to your patients being cured of their complaints,
through stimulating their VMN.

Yours,

Mona Morstein, ND
Mesa, AZ

Alright, I'll bite, but I hope you aren't disappointed that I'm not
coming in with my rhetorical fists swinging. At best, I've got a few
observations. Or reflections. Or something.

> Do I really believe that I have the power to cure... am I really so
> pompous as to believe that I can CURE a patient and this is my high
> and only mission?


I certainly don't think of my mission being to cure my patients,
though I admit that I'm often guilty of forgetting that that's not my
mission. A garden, so the saying goes, is never finished. Neither are
people, I don't think. "Cure" is definitive. It has sharp boundaries,
not fuzzy ones. It's a box that can get checked.

I feel that what I'm doing is entering into a relationship with my
patients, and that my role is to facilitate some process that the
person is engaged in already. As they enter my office, I never know
where in the river of life they are, but my job is to figure that
out, to float along with them for a time (days, months or years) and
bring the skills I have to understanding why their ride is bumpy.

In my experience, the bumps don't end when the migraines stop. Or
when the knee pain is gone. Or when the anxiety has lifted. It's that
a new layer of bumps get noticed. As Ogden Nash wrote:

Even fleas have fleas that bite'em
And on it goes, ad infinitum.

That may not be a quote, but the point is the same. If there is such
a thing as "cure," I imagine it is very much like death. Our maladies
make us human, and my role (*my* role; I do not pretend to speak for
anyone else) is to apply the skills I have to bring people into a
different kind of relationship with their world, because it is that
relationship that is causing trouble.

Perhaps I can get part of the way with some chromium. Perhaps I can
cover some more of the distance with acupuncture. And a bit more by
listening - intensely listening - to where they are, and where they
want to be, and offering a few words that help them see how the
distance can get spanned. I never know going into it, and every time
before I walk in the room for a visit - every single time - I get
nervous wondering if I'll have anything to offer that will be of
benefit. But somehow they keep coming back, and we both feel more
enriched because of it.

"Cure" is not a word in my lexicon. If I can connect - something I
find to be enormously challenging, beyond a relatively superficial
naturopathic doctor/patient level -  then everything else is gravy.
There are places (I believe) in the human experience that are
unreachable by another person (http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/L/
LawrenceDH/DeeperThanLo.htm). But the closer I can get to that place
in the time I have, the closer I come to changing their experience on
this planet.

> How often do we hear people state that they are stimulating the vital
> force...or learning the vis?

There are a a dozen models for how the human psyche works. There are
computer models that describe things in terms of programs and
hardware and software and whatnot. There are neurological models that
describe behavior in terms of synapses and neurons and
neurotransmitter this and that. There are even morphogenic models
that describe behavior, personality and memory as things that
originate outside the confines of the brain, organized and informed
by fields that exist non-locally. Milton Erickson, the Godfather of
hypnotherapy and the most masterful technician of the unconscious
that I know, was never ambiguous in his belief that the idea of the
unconscious is just a concept, a model that is useful.

In my mind, conceiving of humans as animated by the vis is a model.
It has many ways that it can be used which are useful. There are
other models that I find useful as well, and I try my best to shift
between them as the situation asks. In one moment I may think in
terms of the vis, and in another I may think in terms of mechanism
(how else could I understand why I am giving the chromium?) and in
the next I might throw out bodies altogether, offer up a prayer,  and
think in terms of non-duality and Godness (which does not jive with
the vis model, because the vis model is fundamentally dualistic).
It's not that I think that someone else sticking with one model is
handicapped, it's just that I haven't felt at home in any particular
one. I'm always striving for the non-dual model, but alas, I keep
mistakenly finding myself in a dual world.

Thanks to all who have shared. What a long, strange trip this
profession has been...

Greg

> Give a woman an abx for her UTI and you're dealing with the
> physical, give her, oh I don't know, cranberry instead and what
> changes?  Give her a potentized remedy, homeopathic to the case
> and then what are you treating?  Can we say with any degree of
> authority that there is a difference?  What we can observe is
> that there seems to be a subtle and sometimes not so subtle
> difference in the outcome.  But why is it different?  Are you
> going to answer with, "Becuase it's natural!"?



Yes, they are both affecting the mind/body/spirit unity.  But, and a big but,
one of them is consciously working WITH the laws of nature, the vis, to promote
healing, and the other is intervening in the process of nature to stop the
symptoms and presumably then give a window for healing to take place at some
future time.  They are NOT mutually exclusive but I have to say that there is a
difference.  BECAUSE homeopathy or acupuncture or hydrotherapy attempts to
rebalance the mind/body/spirit entity it acts in an indirect but stimulating
fashion to bring about healing.  It is indirect to the "bug" or the "icd-9" code
but direct on the bodies own healing forces and therefore aids the body's
healing reaction to become succesful and not prolonged or chronic.  It is
stimulating because it allows the vis to work more efficiently and effectively
to bring about healing. An Antibiotic or surgery act in a direct but
non-stimulating or even suppressive way to bring about an affect on the symptom
of the healing crisis and therefore will require more work in the future to
accomplish the task it was setting out to accomplish in the present
reaction/illness/healing crisis.  It goes without saying in my mind that both
have their place in the medical world and in the patient's health care choices.

Luke, NCNM

> Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph,
> and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical
> level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that
> amazing vis?).

Since mind/body/and spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one? In addition many of our modalities focus act directly on the non-physical aspect of the mind/body/spirit, as well as the physical ones.

As to "learning the vis" I have never heard of such a term either but I hope that is precisely what we are doing. We are learning the laws of nature so that we can live in accordance with them, help our patients to do so and to direct our therapies in a way that makes use of this knowledge. You say the Vis is God. I wouldn't disagree with you but I would say that in my opinion the naturopathic view of god/nature is one that does not separate it from the physical realm, nor make it inaccesible to human capacities. This split of reality into Spirit and Matter is the basis of the philosophy of scientific rationalism or mechanism and is quite different or even the opposite of what I understand to be naturopathic principles. Certainly there are aspects that are mysterious and beyond our knowledge but I think we are capable of "learning" enough to work in accordance with it. That is why the Vis medicatrix is partially defined in our six principles as being "the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

To merely "learn" the ways and complexity that makes it ordered and intelligent and the different manifestations of the healing process is a great start to catching a glimpse of its mysterious aspects. Other gifted individuals (NOT ME) may in fact catch much more than a glimpse.

Luke, NCNM

> Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph,
> and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical
> level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that
> amazing vis?).


Since mind/body/and spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak
only one?  In addition many of our modalities focus act directly on the
non-physical aspect of the mind/body/spirit, as well as the physical ones.

As to "learning the vis" I have never heard of such a term either but I hope
that is precisely what we are doing.  We are learning the laws of nature so that
we can live in accordance with them, help our patients to do so and to direct
our therapies in a way that makes use of this knowledge.  You say the Vis is
God.  I wouldn't disagree with you but I would say that in my opinion the
naturopathic view of god/nature is one that does not separate it from the
physical realm, nor make it inaccesible to human capacities.  This split of
reality into Spirit and Matter is the basis of the philosophy of scientific
rationalism or mechanism and is quite different or even the opposite of what I
understand to be naturopathic principles.  Certainly there are aspects that are
mysterious and beyond our knowledge but I think we are capable of "learning"
enough to work in accordance with it.  That is why the Vis medicatrix is
partially defined in our six principles as being "the inherent self-organizing
and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores
health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and
intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and
augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and
recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external
environment."

To merely "learn" the ways and complexity that makes it ordered and intelligent
and the different manifestations of the healing process is a great start to
catching a glimpse of its mysterious aspects.  Other gifted individuals (NOT ME)
may in fact catch much more than a glimpse.

Luke, NCNM

Hello,

I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to
promote cure and health in our patients.  So we use these tools
(homeopathy, manipulation, nutrition, hydrotherapy, mind body
medicine, etc)to accomplish our mission to cure the unhealthy.

As far as the phrase "learning the vis", in my inexperienced
experience, I have not heard people using that phrase.  As doctors in
training are we not trying to learn the vis anyway?  I don't find this
controversial at all, it is what we are doing.

tom

Wake up my philosophy friends/colleagues.  I hope to spurn an avid
discussion in this forum.  So, I will pose some spicy questions.  I'm
going to state at the very beginning of this that NOT A SINGLE WORD
OF THIS IS SAID WITH MALICE OR INTENT OF ATTACKING OR HURTING (I know
that affect is hard to read through e-mail)...I really DO want to
start a really nice heated debate, though :).  And like everyone
here, I don't claim to have any answers or claim that my opinions are
right...We are all searching, right?

Hahnemann said that, "The high and only mission of a physician is to
restore the sick to health, to CURE, as it is termed".  Now, I love
homeopathy...and I love our medicine...but, let us step back for a
moment and examine this statement.

Do I really believe that I have the power to cure... am I really so
pompous as to believe that I can CURE a patient and this is my high
and only mission?

If I examine the the Vital Force and the Vis (should that be a whole
new discussion or should I delve into it abit now?), how would this
apply?

Okay, so I won't wait for another discussion...I'll throw it out now.
How often do we hear people state that they are stimulating the vital
force...or learning the vis?  I have a hard time with statements like
these that are thrown around without so much as a thought (yes, I am
intentionally using harsh language to get everyone's juices
running :)).  Do I really believe that I can stimulate the vital
force?  Or do we just clumsily move around and try to tweak whatever
we can in the physical realm, while the vital force channels that
amazing Vis?  And back to that statement "learning the vis"...um, did
I miss that class in school?  The class where we were able to
transcend all of our humanness and physical ties to this existence
and actually learn about the intricacies of something that has no
boundaries and follows no rules.

Okay, I'm done ranting...

~Tweaking around on the physical level and trying to learn the art of
practice, MaryK Martin Geyer

Dear Joshua,

Thank you for your observations regarding the NDPhilosphy home page,
and we (the moderators) have considered your opinion.  However, we
both completely agree with Dr. Zeff, and the wording will not be
changed.

Thank you,
Aimee Knauff
SCNM student
co-moderator

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, "jdgreen78" <thegreendoctor@...>
wrote:
>
> dear dr. zeff,
>
> i want to sincerely thank you for your heartfelt response.  you make
> many fine points.  and i would like to add that i look up to you as
a
> mentor for many reasons...so i am very honored to debate this topic
> with you.
>
> true, there are not groups calling themselves medical doctors who
are
> not (except those that forge their diplomas), but there are N.M.D.s,
> and D.O.s, and N.D's, and D.C.s, and naprapaths (the few and far
> betwen)and we are all doctors, and the public must discern on their
> own what doctor is licensed to do what,  and there are
psychologists,
> and therapists, and the public must decide who would best fit their
> needs.
>
> why must we blow out others' candles to make ours glow brighter?  i
> mean, i think most people, especially those who take the
> correspondence courses would agree(and some would disagree), their
> education pales in comparison to ours, but for whatever reasons they
> are doing the correspondence courses.  would we want MD's saying
that
> they are REAL doctors and we are willy nilly woo woo quacks that
> diagnose bogus things like 'toxemia' and don't believe in
vaccination?
>  i mean, we need to respect eachother's professions.  sure, we can
and
> should make distinctions.  this is not altogether different than in
> religion.  yes, i am sorry, i am bringing up religion.  how can one
> religion be better than another?  how does one rate this?  and is
that
> one religion right for everyone?  what i am saying here is, we are
all
> different, and we are all called to our vocations for varied
reasons.
>  i feel in my heart that the folks who are naturopaths from non-CNME
> accredited schools truly want to help people.  i can't blame them
for
> not wanting to indebt themselves 150,000+ dollars and stress
> themselves out with our academic courseload.  it is not a
naturopathic
> way of going through life, maybe it was years ago, but 28 credits,
> more than twice 'full-time' status, is not sane, nor is it healthy.
> has it provided me the ability to see where my strengths and
> weaknesses are, yes, and for that i am grateful.  but i can't blame
> them for wanting to live a wholistic life and learn about
naturopathy
> on their own time.
>
> are they doctors? obviously not.  but they learn and  embrace our
> philosophies, and learn about some of the same modalities.  why
> shouldn't we embrace them, they are like our cousins, or our
brothers,
> like cain and abel.  like the jews and the arabs.  if we could stop
> fighting with eachother, if the jews and arabs could stop fighting
> with eachother, we could see how we could all get what we need (not
> want, but need) and live together harmoniously.  i think they feel
as
> threatened by us as we do by them.  why not put out our hands and
> simply agree on how we can find licensure that makes distinctions
> between them and us and allows us both to practice.  i agree with
you,
> they should not be able to use the name ND.  i don't see why they
> can't be called naturopaths if they embrace our philosophy, and i
> don't see why we can't be called naturopathic doctors since we have
> the philosophy of naturopathy and the clinical training of a
doctor?
> this, i feel, would be very quick to comprehend if one was a client
> seeking naturopathic care. one is a doctor, one is not.  both have
the
> same philosophies.  and let the public choose.  just as burger king
> and mcdonalds noticed years ago that they could actually increase
> business by being in proximity to eachother, so would we benefit
from
> embracing and not fighting the naturopathic healers from non-CNME
schools.
>
> and yes, i do think it is a love deficiency, i have to respectfully
> disagree with you, at the bottom of it all,  it comes to this. one
> love, one heart, lets stay together and be alright, like it was in
the
> beginning.  (bob marley) thank you for reading this, and i look
> forward to the responses.
>
> sincerely,
>
> with love,
>
> joshua green
> NCNM soon to be grad
> dr. schleich is our president
>

dear dr. zeff,

i want to sincerely thank you for your heartfelt response.  you make
many fine points.  and i would like to add that i look up to you as a
mentor for many reasons...so i am very honored to debate this topic
with you.

true, there are not groups calling themselves medical doctors who are
not (except those that forge their diplomas), but there are N.M.D.s,
and D.O.s, and N.D's, and D.C.s, and naprapaths (the few and far
betwen)and we are all doctors, and the public must discern on their
own what doctor is licensed to do what,  and there are psychologists,
and therapists, and the public must decide who would best fit their
needs.

why must we blow out others' candles to make ours glow brighter?  i
mean, i think most people, especially those who take the
correspondence courses would agree(and some would disagree), their
education pales in comparison to ours, but for whatever reasons they
are doing the correspondence courses.  would we want MD's saying that
they are REAL doctors and we are willy nilly woo woo quacks that
diagnose bogus things like 'toxemia' and don't believe in vaccination?
  i mean, we need to respect eachother's professions.  sure, we can and
should make distinctions.  this is not altogether different than in
religion.  yes, i am sorry, i am bringing up religion.  how can one
religion be better than another?  how does one rate this?  and is that
one religion right for everyone?  what i am saying here is, we are all
different, and we are all called to our vocations for varied reasons.
  i feel in my heart that the folks who are naturopaths from non-CNME
accredited schools truly want to help people.  i can't blame them for
not wanting to indebt themselves 150,000+ dollars and stress
themselves out with our academic courseload.  it is not a naturopathic
way of going through life, maybe it was years ago, but 28 credits,
more than twice 'full-time' status, is not sane, nor is it healthy.
has it provided me the ability to see where my strengths and
weaknesses are, yes, and for that i am grateful.  but i can't blame
them for wanting to live a wholistic life and learn about naturopathy
on their own time.

are they doctors? obviously not.  but they learn and  embrace our
philosophies, and learn about some of the same modalities.  why
shouldn't we embrace them, they are like our cousins, or our brothers,
like cain and abel.  like the jews and the arabs.  if we could stop
fighting with eachother, if the jews and arabs could stop fighting
with eachother, we could see how we could all get what we need (not
want, but need) and live together harmoniously.  i think they feel as
threatened by us as we do by them.  why not put out our hands and
simply agree on how we can find licensure that makes distinctions
between them and us and allows us both to practice.  i agree with you,
they should not be able to use the name ND.  i don't see why they
can't be called naturopaths if they embrace our philosophy, and i
don't see why we can't be called naturopathic doctors since we have
the philosophy of naturopathy and the clinical training of a doctor?
this, i feel, would be very quick to comprehend if one was a client
seeking naturopathic care. one is a doctor, one is not.  both have the
same philosophies.  and let the public choose.  just as burger king
and mcdonalds noticed years ago that they could actually increase
business by being in proximity to eachother, so would we benefit from
embracing and not fighting the naturopathic healers from non-CNME schools.

and yes, i do think it is a love deficiency, i have to respectfully
disagree with you, at the bottom of it all,  it comes to this. one
love, one heart, lets stay together and be alright, like it was in the
beginning.  (bob marley) thank you for reading this, and i look
forward to the responses.

sincerely,

with love,

joshua green
NCNM soon to be grad
dr. schleich is our president

hello fellow philosophy heads,

i would like to first say what a pleasure and an honor it is to be
part of this profession.  okay, now to the reason of this email.  i
would like to draw attention to the following statement on our
NDPhilosophy page ...

Keep in mind that this forum is ONLY for REAL naturopathic doctors and
students – please do not invite people who are not graduate from or
students of an accredited naturopathic school: Bastyr, SCNM, National,
CCNM, Boucher, U of Bridgeport.

i would like to draw your attention especially to the word REAL.
similar to the democrats, our profession is weakened by much
infighting.  and our profession is also weakened by too much fighting
with other professions.  when we use inflammatory words regarding
other peoples professions, we are burning our bridges.  it is true,
very true, that our profession is now very different from years back,
many people who called themselves naturopaths were all under the same
umbrella, and since, was it the 70s or 80s? there was a splinter group
of renegade naturopaths who wanted us to become more similar to MDs in
our training and clinical thinking, to retain our philosophy and
treatments yet add the rigors of basic medical science and the
benefits of research to our beautiful medicine.  as i understand it,
these renegades were our forebears, the schools that now are CNME
accredited are all a part of this new movement.  john bastyr was the
prototype of the new naturopathic doctor.

in keeping with the idea of not infighting, i wish to not use any
inflammatory words regarding the decision to use the term REAL.  i
would rather pose the question of whether this word is needed in that
sentence.  Secondly, i would like to propose that we substitute the
word REAL with 'CNME-accredited'.

i feel, and it is my humble opinion, that there are many good people
out there doing great things with the philosophy of naturopathic
medicine (and of course some who make you cringe-as in any
profession). regardless of where they went to school, i feel that
embracing their fascination and love of the philosophy is ever so
vital to helping our profession grow, so that we may help more people.
  there are different classifications of nurses, and they are not
hindered by this.  There are different classifications of massage
therapists, and they are not terribly hindered by this.  should we as
a profession make sure, to the best of our ability, that the laws that
govern our practice make a distinction between CNME-accredited NDs and
others who are not, definitely.  should non-inflammatory language such
as referring to us as NDs or NMDs and them as naturopaths or lay
naturopaths be used, without a doubt.  although we need to bring about
distinctions, for our as well as our patients rights, we also need to
make sure not to denegrate other's knowledge.

there are many MD's out there, for example, who think we are not
practicing by the idea of tolle causum when we use our philosophy in
practice.  i bring this up because it is easy to judge, very easy, but
ever so important to remember that we are being judged.  if it helps,
we can use this reminder to be compassionate to others.

i personally feel that we should let naturopaths practice so much as
they do not call themselves doctors unless they are a graduate of CNME
accredited schools, but that is a separate discussion.  for now, for
this email, i would just humbly request that we change that word REAL.
    thanks for taking the time to read this,

in love,

joshua green
NCNM soon to be grad
president is Dr. Schleich
(i am in wash d.c. now, it's 5:03 your time, and george w. bush is
president...Ox3)

"one love, one heart, lets stay together and be alright.  Like it was
in the beginning."  -words of wisdom from Bob Marley

Hi William, I was kinda waiting to respond to this to see what others
thought since I don't have the clinical experience yet that you're
looking for.  But since it's kinda quiet, I'll go ahead and jump in.

First, my most basic response is, if the patient is having "issues"
that are resulting in discomfort, pain, or decreased quality of life
and there is a way that I can treat that successfully, then I feel
it's my responsibility to do so.  If the body's innate wisdom is
showing up as this discomfort or pain, then I think I would take that
as it whispering - or shouting - to us that there is something amiss,
something that needs attention, something that is struggling to be in
balance.  Then I need to look for what that thing is and follow our
principles, the therapeutic order to help the body/mind shift.  It
seems like doing that IS honoring the body's wisdom, that the body
knew to send out an SOS signal!

Perhaps, as has been said, the problem of "aging" is not innate, but
an accumulation and the damage is too extensive to allow a complete
return to physical health.  If this is the case, I would still do what
I could to palliate suffering.  I've worked with hospice for 20 years
now in various capacities.  While those cases are more extreme than
your example, I think some of the same things apply.  "Suffering" from
a disease is very subjective and sometimes serves as a magnificent
catalyst for Self healing.  But it's much more difficult to realize
the wonder of that Self healing if the suffering is so physically
extreme that it consumes all awareness.  For this reason (in part),
hospice practices very good palliation and I've seen it do miraculous
things in people's lives -- and deaths.  I'm not advocating opiates
for achlorhydria!  But I am advocating good naturopathic care, which
includes a true understanding of the patient's current state of body,
mind and spirit, that leads me to the best course of
treatment/non-treatment for that patient at that time.  To me that
feels like honoring everything that needs to be honored.

Enjoy your day.
Kim Palka
SCNM student - almost grad!






-- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, William Franklin <wfranklin_4@...>
wrote:
>
> This has come up a few times over the past few months and big time
today so I thought I'd put it to the group.
>
>   Let's say you have a geriatric patient.  And let's say this person
is having GI issues you attribute to achlorhydria as a normal process
in aging.  Do you treat this? or do you choose to honor the body's
innate wisdom in this case and not treat it?  Do you choose to treat
the deficiencies in growth, testosterone, estrogen, thyroid hormones
after determining that these too are reduced as a result of aging?  Or
do you choose to honor the body's innate wisdom?  If you would treat
one and not the other, why?
>
>   What I'm getting at is that I hear doctor's all the time referring
to things that they won't treat as being an honoring of the body'e
innate wisdom and so I am wondering where do you draw the line and
more importantly, why?  What determines when the innate wisdom needs
honoring and when it needs treatment?  And, what makes the two
exclusive?  In other words, why is treating something seen as not
honoring the body's wisdom?
>
>   Thanks y'all,
>
>
> William Franklin
> SCNM Student
>
> "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only –
Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within
you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and
pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and
hypocrisy, not relying on another person's actions or failings. To
accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming
from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius
>
> ---------------------------------
> Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
>  with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
>

This has come up a few times over the past few months and big time today so I thought I'd put it to the group.

 

Let's say you have a geriatric patient.  And let's say this person is having GI issues you attribute to achlorhydria as a normal process in aging.  Do you treat this? or do you choose to honor the body's innate wisdom in this case and not treat it?  Do you choose to treat the deficiencies in growth, testosterone, estrogen, thyroid hormones after determining that these too are reduced as a result of aging?  Or do you choose to honor the body's innate wisdom?  If you would treat one and not the other, why?

 

What I'm getting at is that I hear doctor's all the time referring to things that they won't treat as being an honoring of the body'e innate wisdom and so I am wondering where do you draw the line and more importantly, why?  What determines when the innate wisdom needs honoring and when it needs treatment?  And, what makes the two exclusive?  In other words, why is treating something seen as not honoring the body's wisdom?

 

Thanks y'all,

William Franklin
SCNM Student

"How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius

---

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

Dear All Concerned,

This is a topic that interests and concerns me greatly.

I would argue that there are a number of reasons why knowledge of natural
childbirth should be an essential part of naturopathic education. One has
already been mentioned: the ability to treat woman and children at a higher
level. The other reason I can think of is that the birth experience itself is
perhaps the single most instructive example of the vis-in-action that we will
find in our medical experience. There are many things that we can learn from the
birth process that are highly applicable to every other patient and disease
process that we find.

These lessons include the observation that the fewer interventions in the birth
(ie. the vis, life process) the better the outcome. Birth, though still
considered a "normal" process, is considered within the conventional medical
world to be similar to a disease. We have to "intervene" in order to assure a
healthy outcome in a large number of cases. Birth and fever and inflammation are
really no different then in that sense. They are both natural life processes
that the conventional medical world believes they need to intervene in in order
to "ensure" a healthy outcome. But what we find, unequivocally, is that this
very idea is not true. What we find is that the more intervention in birth, the
worse the outcome, the more sequelae arise. If we actually studied it, we would
find the same thing to be true with fever and inflammation. There are a small
number of births that do require intervention (this number has been established
at about 1% by the data from high quality midwives). The same number is probably
true of inflammation and fever, infection per se.

What we learn from the birth process is to gain a truer sense and respect for
the extraordinary intelligence of the human body. I truly don't think most
people have any concept of this extraordinary intelligence who have not had the
experience of birth. One example that came up recently in a birth is that a
woman having a second child was experiencing a prolonged labor. Whereas their
first child had been born in a relatively short time everyone was expecting a
shorter labor the second time around, which is usually the case, but this one
was being prolonged far beyond even the first child's time frame. What was
happening inside the woman's body is that the umbilical cord was wrapped around
the baby's neck. The baby was not found to be under distress from its heartbeat.
But the slowness of the labor actually functioned to allow the baby to emerge
without pressure that might strangulate her. If the midwive had intervened or
told the woman to push, or if the woman had been given an epidural and hormones
to quicken the labor, the baby might have had serious harm from the umbilical
cord. instead the child was born in non-distress despite the chord problem.

To understand birth is to be face to face with nature's "laws"--they aren't
really laws I think but whatever. The difficult task we have is to learn to
trust the vis medicatrix, but also to learn to perceive it in a way that also
notifies us to the 1% of cases that require intervention. Birth is a good crash
course in these lessons, perhaps the best crash course available. Attending
births with experienced practitioners can teach us far more than any other
"acute" illness" because we have the ability to observe all of the stages in a
great detai.

I would guess that the threat of cutting the midwifery/OB programs at our
colleges has less to do with the desires of our elders and more to do with the
paranoia of our society and the irrational and life-hating orientation of the
"authorities" that result in high insurance costs, etc.

I think that the young people in our profession need to fight hard to reclaim
this portion of our profession. to refuse to let it go and to strengthen the
dialogue between midwifery and naturopathy. Naturopaths have the ability to be
amazing midwives and birth facilitators due to our expertise in effective
overall health optimization and tools for acute interventions that are work with
the vis rather than against it.

I would love to hear more ideas,

Luke Gonzales, NCNM

Lindsay and other friends,

I forwarded your midwifery question to Farra Swan, ND, who practices
obstetrics here in AZ and teaches at SCNM. I've done 2 rotations with
her and many of us SCNM'ers have had the privelege of assisting with
births with her.  It's a phenomenal experience and I personally would
hate to see us give up this part of practice.  I am forwarding her
response with her permission.



As the first OB resident at Bastyr, I was (with Tim Birdsall) involved
in  the accreditation of Bastyr as a midwifery school in WA . For
those of you old enough to remember our history, many of our elders,
including Dr. Bastyr, Dr. Niles Ettinghausen, Dr. Babnick, etc.
delivered babies. When WA state required midwifery licensing (thus
reducing the ND scope of practice). a number of ND's (Joe Pizzorno,
Les Griffith, Charlie & Leyardia Black) sued the state for and won the
right to take the midwifery exam. The rules were then changed to
require graduation from a 3-yr. midwifery school (like SMS). After we
successfully demonstrated that Bastyr fulfilled the requirements and
was accredited, I was the first LM from Bastyr. Since then, the
midwifery program has grown under the direction of Morgan Martin and a
number of dedicated ND's have committed the time and energy to
complete the program and carry the principles of Naturopathic Medicine
to the women and children they care for.
     I have been living in AZ and delivering babies here since 1983. I
initially had a midwifery license here but gave it up because there
was a conflict between the scope of the 2 licenses and as an AZ LM, I
would have had to follow the regulations of the lesser license. Since
AZ has a progressive ND license, including almost full prescriptive
rights, we can treat our pregnant pts as appropriate without referral.
That is obviously an indication of the difference in our training and
scope of practice.
     I also teach the OB course at SCNM (and have been doing so since
the beginning).I understand that there are not overwhelming  numbers
of us who get the advanced training and are willing to maintain the
lifestyle of delivering babies, but I am absolutely shocked at the
possibility that OB/ midwifery would not be considered a part of the
naturopathic curriculum. Where does good health begin if not
preconception/pregnancy? Since most of our pts are women and women get
pregnant, how handicapped will we be if we do not have decent clinical
knowledge of pregnancy? As we are seeking increased licensing and
scope of practice, what will it mean if we have such an obvious
deficit in our education?
     What is also not being considered is what the early MD's who stole
childbirth from the midwives knew: work with pregnant women  and the
whole family will become your pts. A large percentage of my practice
is the women, children, family, and friends of women whose babies I
have delivered for 25 years. I have never really advertised and have
built a successful practice from referrals.
     As the obstetric community is getting more restrictive due to
fears of malpractice, who represents normal birth? With the current
high c-section rate and increasing conservatism about VBAC, is it
really important how a woman delivers? I have been requiring my
students to write their own birth experiences and may someday write a
book about how our births affect us. I was a c/sec in 1947 and never
bonded with my own mother. Does it really matter to the woman who is
has the power for her birth? Does it affect bonding? The  increasing
incidence of postpartum depression? What has birth become in America
(see Marsden Wagner's new book). Are we going to give up our voice and
philosophy in support of women and children just because there are not
large numbers of us willing to get up in the middle of the night?
    Is there a difference between naturopathic midwifery and other
midwives? CNM's still practice in an allopathic system. Non-ND
midwives don't have our level of training and don't do family
practice. Our profession holds very high standards. There are many
herbalists, but we had Bill Mitchell, who didn't just teach botanicals
but inspired us all. Do we want to forfeit the role of inspiring
women/families?  Is this any less important than doing IV's and
esthetic medicine?
     We have an arts fair twice a year here in Tempe. Two years ago I
was buying a mosaic plaque with a saying from Mother Theresa. I told
the artist I was going to hang it in my office. She asked me what I
did. I told her I was a naturopathic physician/midwife. She became
excited and told me she'd had two homebirths. Her first midwife was an
ND. She said she'd had a long difficult labor but her ND didn't give
up on her. After the birth, she said she was completely
transformed---as a woman, as a mother, and as an artist. ...
     Do we want to lose this?
                         Farra Swan