May I see your degree?

What Margaret Bennett doesn’t mention [“May I See Your License?”, Commentary, April 11] is that there is a difference between a naturopathic physician and an alternative health-care practitioner. That difference is four or five years of conventional and alternative medical study in an accredited naturopathic medical college, plus supervised clinical experience—comparable (though obviously not entirely identical) to four years of medical school and one year of residency.

Currently, without the pending legislation co-sponsored by Rep. [Susan] Fisher and Sens. [Martin] Nesbitt and [Joe Sam] Queen, when someone in North Carolina puts “N.D.” (“Naturopathic Doctor”) after their name, the title could mean anything from an at-home study course (with no clinical supervision or direct evaluation) to the full course of study, supervised clinical experience, and license to practice as an N.D. in any of the 14 states or four provinces currently offering such licensing. The legislation would add North Carolina to the list of states recognizing the training and clinical experience of an N.D. and allowing licensed naturopathic physicians to legally diagnose diseases and prescribe therapies without requiring a referral to an M.D., reducing the costs for consumers who choose the integrated-health services of an N.D. as their primary health-care provider.

Currently in this state, only an individual with a medical license can legally diagnose or treat disease, or claim to be qualified to do so. (Today, unlicensed alternative practitioners can only legally claim to support health and normal function with their practices and therapies.) The proposed legislation expands alternative medicine by allowing an N.D. to be licensed to diagnose and treat disease. This is done without changing the rules for other alternative-health practitioners, other than prohibiting them from using the term N.D.

Section 90802(b) of the rather short bill reads in part: “This act recognizes that many of the therapies used by naturopathic physicians, such as the use of nutritional supplements, herbs, foods, homeopathic preparations, and such physical forces as heat, cold, water, touch, and light are not the exclusive privilege of naturopathic physicians. This act does not prohibit the use, practice, or administration of these therapies by a person not licensed or registered to practice naturopathic medicine as long as that person does not diagnose or treat disease or hold himself or herself out as being qualified to diagnose or treat disease.”

I encourage you to offer your support for both the common-sense approaches Ms. Bennett advocates and prompt passage of the Naturopathic Physician Licensing Act (H.B. 969 and S.B. 1080). Licensing will allow an N.D. from nationally accredited naturopathic medical schools to legally provide the high and broader level of service consistent with their extensive medical training and competence. Contrary to Ms. Bennett’s commentary, licensing for naturopathic physicians will not prevent any licensed or unlicensed practitioners from practicing within the scope of their training and will not drive alternative medicine out of North Carolina any more than the current licensing for acupuncturists and chiropractic physicians.

I, for one, would really like to be able to go to an N.D. who can diagnose and prescribe therapies in one stop and for one (much lower) office-visit fee, without having to pay for an additional visit to the office of an M.D. or a emergency room.

I have no financial stake in this matter except as a consumer.

— Pepi Acebo
Swannanoa