Actually, Stephen, naturopaths (of the traditional sort) are quite annoyed to find themselves in the position that they must defend their profession. The matter would not really be an issue if those pushing for licensing would just go for their MD degree and then specialize in natural therapies as you seem to intend to do and imply support for. I can respect you and any other student or practitioner who feels the need and sees a benefit in integrating the two paths into one. As a traditional naturopath I would likely refer my patients to you if I felt the necessity for allopathic treatment since I could hope that you would not denigrate any remedies or therapies I had recommended.

I don't believe the issue is truly over educational standards. Distance learning is pushing its way to the forefront in the US and around the world. Whether correspondence or through the net, it is a viable form of education to which even you attest. I think the time is fast approaching when those who malign distance learning will be the ones laughed at. It is convenient, cost-effective, and of great benefit for those who do not have the luxury of quitting their jobs to further their education in order to change their career paths.

Curriculums can be improved to offer a higher standard of education if that is seen to be necessary. Internships can be required as perhaps they should be. In fact, most if not all of the ND students I know do intend to complete an internship before going into practice. So what is the problem? Those who are pushing for monopolistic licensing want us to study allopathic medicine and we do not want to, it's as simple as that. We are not interested in allopathic medicine nor do we believe that the practice of or knowledge of allopathic medicine as a whole is essential for the practice of naturopathy. If licensing is forced into requirement our rights to practice as naturopaths may suddenly go flying out the window.

I agree with you in that there are some sincere 4 year naturopathic physicians and it is not fair to assume that they are allopathic die-hards that wish to stomp out traditional naturopathy as a profession. Yet most of us have found the attitude of most of them to be just that so I'm sure you can understand our need to defend traditional naturopathy and the right to study and practice it. The history of natural medicine in the US tells much of what happens once allopathy tries to exert itself in playing a role in its practice. Can you blame naturopaths for defending their profession? Your statement, "...the general public doesn't give a hoot about which group is the true decendent of the teaching of Dr. Lust. When they want advice about natural healing they simple want someone who knows what they are talking about" is probably correct. Yet it is because the general public is not aware of the issues at hand that they don't really care. To us it is a bigger issue and the general public will not appreciate how big until it is too late - until licensing and other monopolistic control prevents traditional naturopaths, herbalists, and other healers from practicing their profession just because they did not go to one of a few select schools that makes allopathic education a very large portion of its curriculum. As you yourself wrote "In my travels I have meet some great natural healers...mostly people who call themselves herbalists...their knowledge and profesionalism astounds me. I would trust many of them with my life." They too are threatened by the licensing movement. Considering your inclination towards natural medicine I would think that you would find that disturbing not annoying.

I wish you well in your educational pursuits.

~Cynthia