Background information: Currently, eleven states license naturopathic medicine (Alaska, Arizona, Conneticut, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington). Other states have naturopathic licensing bills pending.

There’s some controversy in the alternative health care community regarding naturopathic state licensing bills. Naturopathic licensing bills apply to individuals who have received a naturopathic doctorate from an accredited naturopathic university. These schools are only available in states that currently license naturopathic medicine.

Those arguing in favor of these bills say they are needed to allow ND’s that have been trained to do medical practices (such as giving an intravenous drip (IV), stitching a wound, or lancing a boil) the freedom to practice to the full scope of their training. In states in which naturopathy is not licensed, ND’s are prohibited from these practices - thus limiting the nature of the care they can provide to individuals with advanced illness. This is especially true in cancer care, in which IV’s with high concentrations of vitamin C, antioxidants, and other immune system support supplements are commonly used.

Those arguing against these licensing bills argue that most licensing bills include an exclusivity clause, which, if the bill passes, would preclude other complementary and alternative health care practitioners from practicing. This would include all traditionally trained naturopaths, aroma-therapists, nutritionists, homeopaths, and herbalists who have not graduated from an accredited naturopathic university. In addition, opposition groups argue that the healing arts should remain within the public domain, and that because most modalities are extremely safe, their practice should not be subject to regulation. Some

Obviously, both groups have valid concerns. Having said this, Cancer Cure Foundation includes mention here of the California naturopathic licensing bill. For information on other state licensing bills, see www.naturopathic.org.

California ND Licensing: “The California Association of Naturopathic Physician’s (CANP's) proposed legislation to license Naturopathic Doctors (NDs) to practice in California was released in October 2001 in the form of a pre-print bill, submitted by Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland). A pre-print bill allows the CANP to negotiate details of the proposed legislation with various stakeholders before formal introduction next session. The bill accomplishes these major goals:”

1. “Defines the qualifications for a practitioner to use the title Naturopathic Doctor/Physician.”
2. “Defines a scope of practice based on education and examination”
3. “Provides the ability to legally prevent, diagnose and treat patients”
4. “Provides an independent practice status”
5. “Does not restrict access to any practitioner or therapy”

For more details, see the CANP website, www.canp.org.

Under S.B. 577

S.B. 577 Update December 2001 - “The CHFC made an excellent and well-received presentation of their bill, SB577, during a Senate Hearing on alternative medicine that took place on October 23 in Sacramento. CHFC secretary David Palmer first presented the overall rationale and approach behind SB577. Namely, that as long as a person does not perform a potentially dangerous medical procedure or harm anyone, he or she should not be considered to be practicing medicine without a license. In essence, SB577 would narrow the scope of the Medical Practice Act -- which currently covers anything that anyone could possibly do to heal someone -- to only those medical practices that are potentially dangerous. David's presentation was followed by that of board member Amy Lansky, who described her son's recovery from autism due to homeopathic treatment. Amy made a strong and stirring case for how alternative healing therapies are truly needed in California.”

“The October 23 hearing was called by Senator Liz Figueroa, chair of the Senate Business and Professions Committee -- the committee that regulates medical practice in the state. She initiated the hearing because she has strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine and recognizes that there are currently problems surrounding this issue in California. During the hearing, testimony was given by various groups including: the naturopathic physicians who are seeking a licensing law for their form of practice; groups who are opposed to licensing approaches to alternative medicine; the CHFC; insurance industry representatives; and a few doctors who feel they have been unfairly prosecuted by the medical board because they use alternative methods.” (from the chfc web-stie)

The CHFC expects SB 577 to be reviewed by the Senate Business and Professions Committee in late January/early February 2002. See the CHFC website for more details - www.californiahealthfreedom.org.

S.B. 2100 Update December 2001 - California Citizens for Health presented testimony at the October 23^{rd California Senate Business & Professional Committee Hearing on Alternative Medicine. (This was an informational hearing organized by Senator Liz Figueroa’s office and included testimony from a number of groups on a range of issues related to alternative medicine in California. (e.g. MD right to practice alternative medicine (SB2100), naturopathic physician licensing, and narrowing the scope of the Medical Practice Act (SB 577). Most likely additional informational hearings on legislative issues related to alternative medicine in California will follow in the coming year. To order a videotape of the hearing, see www.citizenshealth.org/video.htm.}