Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 " krhkempo " <krhkempo Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:28pm Re: how many hours for WM --- I don't quite understand your comment about naturopaths being licensed in all 50 states. I was under the impression that they were only licensed in 12 states. Being in Connecticut, an ND licensing state, I know the statute that governs naturopathy does not allow it to be practiced by other than those licensed by the state. It also does not recognize any of program outside certain 4 year graduate courses. Say you get your degree in naturopathy from Clayton College and then come to connecticut, you will be prosecuted for practicing medicine w/o a license. First of all, I said one could practice as an unlicensed healer in all 50 states. Here is the exact quote: " Naturopaths can and do practice legally in all 50 states as unlicensed healers. " I never said they could use illegal titles, but they can still do traditional premodern styles of natural therapies like herbs, homeopathy, diet, etc. Common law trumps the Connecticut statue. See Roger's post and links below. It all comes down to claims and titles. Most states I know control the title Naturopathic physicians, ND or doctor of naturopathic medicine, but not the title Naturopath. CA and OR are examples of this. You should check the exact wording of the CT law and let us know. But even if all use of related terms is banned (which I doubt), one could still practice most of the therapies w/o a license of any kind in any state. You could not make dx or order lab tests, but that is my point. If one does not have those special medical rights anyway, why get a license of any kind in the first place. The law requires a license for any medical procedure that involves sharp things piercing the skin. But no license is necessary to prescribe herbs in any state and even if such a law were passed or on the books, it would be ruled as inapplicable in a jury case, just as in every such prior case in american legal history. See Roger's research; check the CT statutes closely and get back to us, if you have the time and inclination to explore further. On Jul 10, 2004, at 8:14 AM, rw2 wrote: > Bob, > > I spent several hundred hours investigating the issues of practicing > medicine without a license (PMWL) in the early 1990's. The result was > the following paper: > > http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html > The right to practice herbology, legal history and basis > > It was written in 1995, appeared on our website in 1998, and has been > read by many people included lawyers who have sent me comments, > essentially agreeing with the conclusions and offering no rebuttals to > any of the points. I train all of my students to follow all of the > guidelines discussed in the article so that they practice lawfully. > (There is a distinction between " legal " and " lawful " - " legal " is the > proper term to use when referring to conformance with statutory > provisions, " lawful " is the proper term to use when referring to > exercise of one's rights at common law. Attorneys, weasels that many > are, will try to confuse people on this point. So the question should > not be is it legal to practice as an herbalist, but is it lawful. I'm > not trying to be cute. This is why people hate lawyers.) > > I take an interest in all major cases of prosecutions for PMWL. My > observations are that prosecutors will pursue only the most blatant > cases in which the practitioner clearly violated various taboos > (listed in my article) on multiple occasions. The most recent case was > that of Hulda Clark in Indiana. She referred to herself as " Doctor " > Clark (strike 1), she diagnosed people as having AIDS and other > medically defined conditions using relatively vaporous methods (strike > 2), she claimed to be able to " cure " these conditions (strike 3). In > spite of three strikes against her, for which she had to hire a lawyer > to defend her, and was out $50,000 for this defense, she won her case. > Juries are generally so sympathetic to alternative practitioners, > unless they kill someone or are guilty of maliciousness, that > prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute anything but cases that clearly > violate guidelines issued in case law by the higher courts. But the > important lesson from this case is that she was prosecuted because > there was evidence that she did violate these clearly stated > guidelines. The statutory wording of medical practice acts is > generally consistent with this case law (common law), not in conflict > with it. > > Such case law is rarely overturned by medical practice statutes. > Statutes cannot demand things, at least in principle, that would be > ruled violations of constitutional rights - at least that was > generally true until the Patriot Act insanity came along. Licensing > acts must be consistent with case law defining the extent of " police > powers " , and when natural rights are at issue, the police powers must > follow very strict guidelines so as to not violate these rights. Even > with the Patriot Act, state and local reactions to this are heading in > the opposite direction. The Health Freedom Acts are merely one example > of how local and state laws have been passed to support a more > libertarian agenda, in reaction to the tyranny at higher levels. > Witness the number of communities and states that have passed statutes > stating that their officials shall not cooperate with federal agents > to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act. I predict this trend will > escalate. > > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist > contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ > Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA > Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 , wrote: > " krhkempo " <krhkempo@a...> > Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:28pm > Re: how many hours for WM > > Hi Thanks for the great link. It has a lot of useful info. I did take the time to look up the laws in CT but possibly you can explain them as I am not a lwyer type. It seems clear that practicing any form of natureopathy without a license is illegal: Connecticut Public Acts 1996 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 20-37 of the general statutes, as amended by sections 12 and 21 of public act 95-257, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: No person shall engage in the practice of natureopathy in this state until he has obtained a license. ... http://www.cslib.org/pa/pa018.htm It goes on to define what schools are approved by the " Council on Naturopathic Medical Education " and it also defines what is considered to be Natureopathy including the use of natural substances. But to be clear. Are you saying that as long as one doesn't say they are practicing something, i.e. natureopathy, its ok to do so? Again, just trying to clarify Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 , " krhkempo " <krhkempo@a...> wrote: Are you saying that as long as one doesn't say > they are practicing something, i.e. natureopathy, its ok to do so? I believe that is the case. I believe this provison in Section 20-42 below can be sidestepped by careful word choice alone. Remmber I said a naturopath can practice as an unlicesned healer in all 50 states under common. I did not say they could practice naturopathy. CT appears to have written their law much more strictly than CA, not even allowing any use of any term even related to naturopathy. But nothing in this law would prevent a person from being an " herbalist " under common law (unless that term is also controlled by the state, which I doubt, but I could be wrong again). The " herbalist " could then do mcuh of naturopathy expect for examination, dx, lab tests and surgery. but they could prescribe herbs, make dietary changes, etc. Certainly givng the right to naturopaths to do such things does not take them away from anyone else who has the right to do so under with either stature or common law. thus chiropractors and MD and DOs also have statutory access to various aspects of naturopathic scope and unlicensed healers who do not claim a title are protected under 500 years of common law precedent. Its all a word game and the masses of citizens have just as much right to play this word game as the powerful and the elite. Section 20-42. Penalties. Any person, except a licensed natureopath or a physician licensed to practice medicine as provided by chapter 370, who practices or attempts to practice natureopathy, or any person who buys, sells or fraudulently obtains any diploma or license to practice natureopathy whether recorded or not, or any person who uses the title " natureopath " or any word or title to induce the belief that he is engaged in the practice of natureopathy, without complying with the provisions of this chapter, or any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.