You statement, \"I cannot truly see a similarity between a four year program and a \\\'program\\\'...\" and other posts you have made at this forum, I gather that you don\'t have a lot of respect for students/graduates of the distance learning programs. With all due respect, a critical point which you appear to have missed is that the residential schools teach and advocate an entirely different \"brand\" of naturopathy than the distance schools. Let me please preface the rest of what I am about to say with the caveat ... I have nothing whatsoever against the residential schools, their graduates, nor their views and philosophies about naturopathy. However, the unavoidable reality is that there are at least two distinct naturopathy \"camps.\" A major difference is that the residential schools teach and advocate invasive procedures and prescription medications, whereas the distance learning schools do not. Many have referred to the \"brand\" of naturopathy taught at residential schools as a hyrid between naturopathy and allopathy. Certainly, I think that we would have to agree that the residential schools teach and advocate procedures not envisioned by the founders and early pioneers of traditional naturopathy. Having said that, I do not mean to imply that I think it is necessarily bad that these schools teach and advocate principles foreign to traditional naturopathy. I personally feel that there is a place for both schools of thought. Moreover, I would really like to see the two \"camps\" lay down their swords and stop wasting all of the time, energy, and resources required to continually be putting one another down. After all, both camps do share a common thread in that they both believe in the healing power of nature.

Granted, Chris, if one were wanting to practice naturopathy as advocated by the residential schools -- i.e., would eventually be prescribing legend drugs and performing minor surgery -- I would most certainly want that person to be a graduate of a residential school. However, if one were wanting to practice traditional naturopathy -- which is really a teaching and counseling approach to naturopathy -- then, I see no reason why distance learning would not be appropriate.

Let\'s face it, Chris, the world of higher education is changing rapidly. I just completed an Ed.S. degree (specialist in education) from a traditional/traditionally accredited university and did it entirely through distance learning. It is possible to earn fully accredited doctorates in a variety of disciplines these days -- including the helping/healing professions. Granted, distance learning is not appropriate for all fields; however, with rapid advances in instructional technology and learning via the web, new possibilities are emerging all the time.

Let\'s be honest Chris. A great deal of the fight between graduates of residential schools and those of distance schools comes down to competition and \"turf\" issues. In all of the states that have passed ND licensure laws of which I am aware, the laws have included strong restrictions against anyone practicing as a ND who is not a graduate of the residential colleges. Conversely, the traditional naturopaths--i.e., the grads of the distance learning programs do not typically push for licensure at all and certainly do not advocate any kind of exclusionary restrictions for those who are not grads of traditional naturopathy schools.

So, what\'s wrong with having both kinds of NDs? Why not allow those who have graduated from the residential schools and learned the \"hybrid\" brand of naturopathy to practice as NMDs (Naturopathic Medical Doctors), while those who have been educated as traditional naturopaths be allowed to practice as NDs (Naturopathic Doctors). The NMD designation seems only fitting and respectful of you guys -- and it seems to more succinctly describe what you are trained to do. Conversely and historically, the ND designation has been associated with traditional naturopathy since its inception ... so it seems only fitting and accurate to refer to traditional naturopaths as NDs.

Then, once these professional title and scope of practice issues have been settled -- why don\'t the two groups try to find some ways to work cooperatively -- or at least with less hatred toward one another? That\'s bound to be better for the practitioners and most cetainly for their clients/patients. How could anyone have a problem with such a simple and sound approach to balancing the natural health \"pie\"?

Respectfully and in Peace,

Bill Carnagey