A Medley of Potpourri

Monday, August 28, 2023

Osteopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Osteopathy
OMT technique for the treatment of impotence in the 1898 Osteopathy Complete manual

Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones. In most countries, practitioners of osteopathy are not medically trained and are referred to as osteopaths.

Osteopathic manipulation is the core set of techniques in osteopathy. Parts of osteopathy, such as craniosacral therapy, have no therapeutic value and have been labeled as pseudoscience and quackery. The techniques are based on an ideology created by Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) which posits the existence of a "myofascial continuity"—a tissue layer that "links every part of the body with every other part". Osteopaths attempt to diagnose and treat what was originally called "the osteopathic lesion", but which is now named "somatic dysfunction", by manipulating a person's bones and muscles. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) techniques are most commonly used to treat back pain and other musculoskeletal issues.

Osteopathic manipulation is still included in the curricula of osteopathic physicians or Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) training in the US. The Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, however, became a medical degree and is no longer a degree of non-medical osteopathy.

History

The practice of osteopathy began in the United States in 1874. Osteopathy was founded by Andrew Taylor Still, a 19th-century American physician (MD), Civil War surgeon, and Kansas state and territorial legislator.He lived near Baldwin City, Kansas, during the American Civil War and it was there that he founded the practice of osteopathy. Still claimed that human illness was rooted in problems with the musculoskeletal system, and that osteopathic manipulations could solve these problems by harnessing the body's own self-repairing potential. Still's patients were forbidden from treatment by conventional medicine, as well as from other practices such as drinking alcohol. These practices derive from the belief, common in the early 19th century among proponents of alternative medicine, that the body's natural state tends toward health and inherently contains the capacity to battle any illness. This was opposed to orthodox practitioners, who held that intervention by a physician was necessary to restore health in the patient. Still established the basis for osteopathy, and the division between alternative medicine and traditional medicine had already been a major conflict for decades.

The foundations of this divergence may be traced back to the mid-18th century when advances in physiology began to localize the causes and nature of diseases to specific organs and tissues. Doctors began shifting their focus from the patient to the internal state of the body, resulting in an issue labeled as the problem of the "vanishing patient". A stronger movement towards experimental and scientific medicine was then developed. In the perspective of the DO physicians, the sympathy and holism that were integral to medicine in the past were left behind. Heroic medicine became the convention for treating patients, with aggressive practices like bloodletting and prescribing chemicals such as mercury, becoming the forefront in therapeutics. Alternative medicine had its beginnings in the early 19th century, when gentler practices in comparison to heroic medicine began to emerge. As each side sought to defend its practice, a schism began to present itself in the medical marketplace, with both practitioners attempting to discredit the other. The osteopathic physicians—those who are now referred to as DO's—argued that the non-osteopathic physicians had an overly mechanistic approach to treating patients, treated the symptoms of disease instead of the original causes, and were blind to the harm they were causing their patients. Other practitioners had a similar argument, labeling osteopathic medicine as unfounded, passive, and dangerous to a disease-afflicted patient. This was the medical environment that pervaded throughout the 19th century, and the setting Still entered when he began developing his idea of osteopathy.

After experiencing the loss of his wife and three daughters to spinal meningitis and noting that the current orthodox medical system could not save them, Still may have been prompted to shape his reformist attitudes towards conventional medicine. Still set out to reform the orthodox medical scene and establish a practice that did not so readily resort to drugs, purgatives, and harshly invasive therapeutics to treat a person suffering from ailment, similar to the mindset of the irregulars in the early 19th century. Thought to have been influenced by spiritualist figures such as Andrew Jackson Davis and ideas of magnetic and electrical healing, Still began practicing manipulative procedures that intended to restore harmony in the body. Over the course of the next twenty five years, Still attracted support for his medical philosophy that disapproved of orthodox medicine, and shaped his philosophy for osteopathy. Components included the idea that structure and function are interrelated and the importance of each piece of the body in the harmonious function of its whole.

Still sought to establish a new medical school that could produce physicians trained under this philosophy, and be prepared to compete against the orthodox physicians. He established the American School of Osteopathy on 20 May 1892, in Kirksville, Missouri, with twenty-one students in the first class. Still described the foundations of osteopathy in his book "The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy" in 1892. He named his new school of medicine "osteopathy", reasoning that "the bone, osteon, was the starting point from which [he] was to ascertain the cause of pathological conditions". He would eventually claim that he could "shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck."

When the state of Missouri granted the right to award the MD degree, he remained dissatisfied with the limitations of conventional medicine and instead chose to retain the distinction of the DO degree. In the early 20th century, osteopaths across the United States sought to establish law that would legitimize their medical degree to the standard of the modern medic. The processes were arduous, and not without conflict. In some states, it took years for the bills to be passed. Osteopaths were often ridiculed and in some cases arrested, but in each state, osteopaths managed to achieve the legal acknowledgement and action they set out to pursue. In 1898 the American Institute of Osteopathy started the Journal of Osteopathy and by that time four states recognized osteopathy as a profession.

Practice

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) involves palpation and manipulation of bones, muscles, joints, and fasciae.

According to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is considered to be only one component of osteopathic medicine and may be used alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, rehabilitation, surgery, patient education, diet, and exercise. OMT techniques are not necessarily unique to osteopathic medicine; other disciplines, such as physical therapy or chiropractic, use similar techniques. In reality many DOs do not practice OMT at all and over time DOs in general practice less and less OMT and instead apply the common medical treatments.

One integral tenet of osteopathy is that problems in the body's anatomy can affect its proper functioning. Another tenet is the body's innate ability to heal itself. Many of osteopathic medicine's manipulative techniques are aimed at reducing or eliminating the impediments to proper structure and function so the self-healing mechanism can assume its role in restoring a person to health. Osteopathic medicine defines a concept of health care that embraces the concept of the unity of the living organism's structure (anatomy) and function (physiology). The AOA states that the four major principles of osteopathic medicine are the following:

The body is an integrated unit of mind, body, and spirit.
The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms, having the inherent capacity to defend, repair, and remodel itself.
Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated.
Rational therapy is based on consideration of the first three principles.

These principles are not held by Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine to be empirical laws; they serve, rather, as the underpinnings of the osteopathic approach to health and disease.

Muscle energy

Muscle energy techniques address somatic dysfunction through stretching and muscle contraction. For example, if a person is unable to fully abduct her arm, the treating physician raises the patient's arm near the end of the patient's range of motion, also called the edge of the restrictive barrier. The patient then tries to lower her arm, while the physician provides resistance. This resistance against the patient's motion allows for isotonic contraction of the patient's muscle. Once the patient relaxes, her range of motion increases slightly. The repetition of alternating cycles of contraction and subsequent relaxation help the treated muscle improve its range of motion. Muscle energy techniques are contraindicated in patients with fractures, crush injuries, joint dislocations, joint instability, severe muscle spasms or strains, severe osteoporosis, severe whiplash injury, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, severe illness, and recent surgery.

Counterstrain

Counterstrain is a system of diagnosis and treatment that considers the physical dysfunction to be a continuing, inappropriate strain reflex, which is inhibited during treatment by applying a position of mild strain in the direction exactly opposite to that of the reflex. After a counterstrain point tender to palpation has been diagnosed, the identified tender point is treated by the osteopathic physician who, while monitoring the tender point, positions the patient such that the point is no longer tender to palpation. This position is held for ninety seconds and the patient is subsequently returned to her normal posture. Most often this position of ease is usually achieved by shortening the muscle of interest. Improvement or resolution of the tenderness at the identified counterstrain point is the desired outcome. The use of counterstrain technique is contraindicated in patients with severe osteoporosis, pathology of the vertebral arteries, and in patients who are very ill or cannot voluntarily relax during the procedure.

High-velocity, low-amplitude

High velocity, low amplitude (HVLA) is a technique which employs a rapid, targeted, therapeutic force of brief duration that travels a short distance within the anatomic range of motion of a joint and engages the restrictive barrier in one or more places of motion to elicit release of restriction. The use of HVLA is contraindicated in patients with Down syndrome due to instability of the atlantoaxial joint which may stem from ligamentous laxity, and in pathologic bone conditions such as fracture, history of a pathologic fracture, osteomyelitis, osteoporosis, and severe cases of rheumatoid arthritis. HVLA is also contraindicated in patients with vascular disease such as aneurysms, or disease of the carotid arteries or vertebral arteries. People taking ciprofloxacin or anticoagulants, or who have local metastases should not receive HVLA.

Myofascial release

Myofascial release is a form of alternative treatment. The practitioners claim to treat skeletal muscle immobility and pain by relaxing contracted muscles. Palpatory feedback by the practitioner is said to be an integral part to achieving a release of myofascial tissues, accomplished by relaxing contracted muscles, increasing circulation and lymphatic drainage, and stimulating the stretch reflex of muscles and overlying fascia.

Practitioners who perform myofascial release consider the fascia and its corresponding muscle to be the main targets of their procedure, but assert that other tissue may be affected as well, including other connective tissue. Fascia is the soft tissue component of the connective tissue that provides support and protection for most structures within the human body, including muscle. This soft tissue can become restricted due to psychogenic disease, overuse, trauma, infectious agents, or inactivity, often resulting in pain, muscle tension, and corresponding diminished blood flow.

Some osteopaths search for small lumps of tissue, called "Chapman release points" as part of their diagnostic procedure.

Lymphatic pump treatment

Lymphatic pump treatment (LPT) is a manual technique intended to encourage lymph flow in a person's lymphatic system. The first modern lymphatic pump technique was developed in 1920, although osteopathic physicians used various forms of lymphatic techniques as early as the late 19th century.

Relative contraindications for the use of lymphatic pump treatments include fractures, abscesses or localized infections, and severe bacterial infections with body temperature elevated higher than 102 °F (39 °C).

Effectiveness

A 2005 Cochrane review of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in asthma treatment concluded that there was insufficient evidence that OMT can be used to treat asthma.

In 2013, a Cochrane review reviewed six randomized controlled trials which investigated the effect of four types of chest physiotherapy (including OMT) as adjunctive treatments for pneumonia in adults and concluded that "based on current limited evidence, chest physiotherapy might not be recommended as routine additional treatment for pneumonia in adults." Techniques investigated in the study included paraspinal inhibition, rib raising, and myofascial release. The review found that OMT did not reduce mortality and did not increase cure rate, but that OMT slightly reduced the duration of hospital stay and antibiotic use. A 2013 systematic review of the use of OMT for treating pediatric conditions concluded that its effectiveness was unproven.

In 2014, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials found moderate-quality evidence that OMT reduces pain and improves functional status in acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. The same analysis also found moderate-quality evidence for pain reduction for nonspecific low back pain in postpartum women and low-quality evidence for pain reduction in nonspecific low back pain in pregnant women. A 2013 systematic review found insufficient evidence to rate osteopathic manipulation for chronic nonspecific low back pain. In 2011, a systematic review found no compelling evidence that osteopathic manipulation was effective for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.

A 2018 systematic review found that there is no evidence for the reliability or specific efficacy of the techniques used in visceral osteopathy.

The New England Journal of Medicine's 4 November 1999 issue concluded that patients with chronic low back pain can be treated effectively with manipulation. The United Kingdom's National Health Service says there is "limited evidence" that osteopathy "may be effective for some types of neck, shoulder or lower limb pain and recovery after hip or knee operations", but that there is no evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for health conditions unrelated to the bones and muscles. Others have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest efficacy for osteopathic style manipulation in treating musculoskeletal pain.

Criticism

The American Medical Association listed DOs as "cultists" and deemed MD consultation of DOs unethical from 1923 until 1962. MDs regarded that osteopathic treatments were rooted in "pseudoscientific dogma", and although physicians from both branches of medicine have been able to meet on common ground, tensions between the two continue.

In 1988, Petr Skrabanek classified osteopathy as one of the "paranormal" forms of alternative medicine, commenting that it has a view of disease which had no meaning outside its own closed system.

In a 1995 conference address, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Jordan J. Cohen, pinpointed OMT as a defining difference between MDs and DOs; while he saw there was no quarrel in the appropriateness of manipulation for musculoskeletal treatment, the difficulty centered on "applying manipulative therapy to treat other systemic diseases"—at that point, Cohen maintained, "we enter the realm of skepticism on the part of the allopathic world."

In 1998, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch said that the worth of manipulative therapy had been exaggerated and that the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) was acting unethically by failing to condemn craniosacral therapy. The article attracted a letter from the law firm representing the AOA accusing Barrett of libel and demanding an apology to avert legal action. In response, Barrett made some slight modifications to his text, while maintaining its overall stance; he queried the AOA's reference to "the body's natural tendency toward good health", and challenged them to "provide [him] with adequate scientific evidence showing how this belief has been tested and demonstrated to be true." Barrett has been quoted as saying, "the pseudoscience within osteopathy can't compete with the science".

In 1999, Joel D. Howell noted that osteopathy and medicine as practiced by MDs were becoming increasingly convergent. He suggested that this raised a paradox: "if osteopathy has become the functional equivalent of allopathy, what is the justification for its continued existence? And if there is value in therapy that is uniquely osteopathic – that is, based on osteopathic manipulation or other techniques – why should its use be limited to osteopaths?"

In 2004, the osteopathic physician Bryan E. Bledsoe, a professor of emergency medicine, wrote disparagingly of the "pseudoscience" at the foundation of OMT. In his view, "OMT will and should follow homeopathy, magnetic healing, chiropractic, and other outdated practices into the pages of medical history."

In 2010, Steven Salzberg wrote that OMT was promoted as a special distinguishing element of DO training, but that it amounted to no more than "'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices." It has been suggested that osteopathic physicians may be more likely than MDs to be involved in questionable practices such as orthomolecular therapy and homeopathy.

Retired MD and U.S. Air Force flight surgeon Harriet Hall stated that DOs trained in the U.S. are Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and are legally equivalent to MDs. "They must be distinguished from 'osteopaths', members of a less regulated or unregulated profession that is practiced in many countries. Osteopaths get inferior training that can't be compared to that of DOs."

Regulation and legal status

The osteopathic profession has evolved into two branches, non-physician manual medicine osteopaths and full scope of medical practice osteopathic physicians. These groups are so distinct that in practice they function as separate professions. The regulation of non-physician manual medicine osteopaths varies greatly between jurisdictions. In Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland, UAE and UK the non-physician manual medicine osteopaths are regulated by statute and practice requires registration with the relevant regulatory authority. The Osteopathic International Alliance has a country guide with details of registration and practice rights and the International Osteopathic Association has a list of all accredited osteopathic colleges.

Several international and national organizations exist relating to osteopathic education and political advocacy. Similarly, there is also an international organization of organizations for national osteopathic and osteopathic medical associations, statutory regulators, and universities/medical schools offering osteopathic and osteopathic medical education, known as the Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA).

The following sections describe the legal status of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine in each country listed.

Australia

A majority of osteopaths work in private practice, with osteopaths working within aged care, traffic and workers compensation schemes or co-located with medical practitioners. Osteopaths are not considered physicians or medical doctors in Australia, rather as allied health professionals offering private practice care. The majority of private health insurance providers cover treatment performed by osteopaths, as do many government based schemes such as veteran's affairs or workers compensations schemes. In addition, treatment performed by osteopaths is covered by the public healthcare system in Australia (Medicare) under the Chronic Disease Management plan.

Osteopathy Australia (formerly the Australian Osteopathic Association) is a national organization representing the interests of Australian osteopaths, osteopathy as a profession in Australia, and consumers' right to access osteopathic services. Founded in 1955 in Victoria, the Australian Osteopathic Association became a national body in 1991 and became Osteopathy Australia in 2014. and is a member of the Osteopathic International Alliance.

The Osteopathy Board of Australia is part of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency which is the regulatory body for all recognized health care professions in Australia. The Osteopathic Board of Australia is separate from the Medical Board of Australia which is the governing body that regulates medical practitioners. Osteopaths trained internationally may be eligible for registration in Australia, dependent on their level of training and following relevant competency assessment.

Students training to be an osteopath in Australia must study in an approved program in an accredited university. Current accredited courses are either four or five years in length. To achieve accreditation universities courses must demonstrate the capabilities of graduates. The capabilities are based on the CanMEDS competency framework that was developed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

A 2018 large scale study, representing a response rate of 49.1% of the profession indicated the average age of the participants was 38.0 years, with 58.1% being female and the majority holding a Bachelor or higher degree qualification for osteopathy. The study also estimated a total of 3.9 million patients consulted osteopaths every year in Australia. Most osteopaths work in referral relationships with a range of other health services, managing patients primarily with musculoskeletal disorders.

Canada

In Canada, the titles "osteopath" and "osteopathic physician" are protected in some provinces by the medical regulatory college for physicians and surgeons. As of 2011, there were approximately 20 U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians, all of which held a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, practicing in all of Canada. As of 2014, no training programs have been established for osteopathic physicians in Canada.

The non-physician manual practice of osteopathy is practiced in most Canadian provinces. As of 2014, manual osteopathic practice is not a government-regulated health profession in any province, and those interested in pursuing osteopathic studies must register in private osteopathy schools. It is estimated that there are over 1,300 osteopathic manual practitioners in Canada, most of whom practice in Quebec and Ontario. Some sources indicate that there are between 1,000 and 1,200 osteopaths practicing in the province of Quebec, and although this number might seem quite elevated, many osteopathy clinics are adding patients on waiting lists due to a shortage of osteopaths in the province.

Quebec

Beginning in 2009, Université Laval in Quebec City was working with the Collège d'études ostéopathiques in Montreal on a project to implement a professional osteopathy program consisting of a bachelor's degree followed by a professional master's degree in osteopathy as manual therapy. However, due to the many doubts concerning the scientific credibility of osteopathy from the university's faculty of medicine, the program developers decided to abandon the project in 2011, after 2+1⁄2 years of discussion, planning, and preparation for the program implementation. There was some controversy with the final decision of the university's committee regarding the continuous undergraduate and professional graduate program in osteopathy because the Commission of studies, which is in charge of evaluating new training programs offered by the university, had judged that the program had its place at Université Laval before receiving the unfavourable support decision from the faculty of medicine. Had the program been implemented, Université Laval would have been the first university institution in Quebec to offer a professional program in osteopathy as a manual therapy.

Egypt and the Middle East

Hesham Khalil introduced osteopathy in the Middle East at a local physical therapy conference in Cairo, Egypt in 2005 with a lecture titled "The global Osteopathic Concept / Holistic approach in Somatic Dysfunction". Since then he has toured the Middle East to introduce osteopathy in other Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Sudan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Oman. In December 2007 the first Workshop on Global osteopathic approach was held at the Nasser Institute Hospital for Research and Treatment, sponsored by the Faculty of Physical Therapy, University of Cairo, Egypt. On 6 August 2010, the Egyptian Osteopathic Society (OsteoEgypt) was founded. OsteoEgypt promotes a two-tier model of osteopathy in Egypt and the Middle East. The event was timed to coincide with the birthday of A.T. Still.

European Union

There is no European regulatory authority for the practice of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine within the European Union; each country has its own rules. The UK's General Osteopathic Council, a regulatory body set up under the country's Osteopaths Act 1993, issued a position paper on European regulation of osteopathy in 2005.

Belgium

Since the early 1970s, osteopaths have been practicing in Belgium, during which time several attempts have been made to obtain an official status of health care profession. In 1999, a law was voted (the 'Colla-Law') providing a legal framework for osteopathy, amongst three other non-conventional medical professions. In 2011, the former Belgian Minister Onkelinx set up the Chambers for Non-Conventional Medicines and the Joint Commission provided for in the "Colla-law" (1999). Their goal was to discuss and reach an agreement between the various medical professions to rule on these practices. In February 2014, only one practice, homeopathy, received its recognition. The others, including osteopathy, remain unresolved.

Since 2014, the majority of the professional osteopathic associations have joined together under the name of UPOB - BVBO (Union Professionelle des Osteopathes de Belgique - Belgische Vereniging van Belgische Osteopaten - Professional Union of Belgian Osteopaths) in order to strengthen the image and vision of osteopathy (± 900 osteopaths). This unification also led in the creation of a website which represents all aspects of osteopathy in Belgium. Its aim is to offer Belgians a base of information about osteopathy, to provide access to a national on-call emergency service as well as to osteopathic care facilities for the less fortunates. The site has also a search engine giving access to all osteopaths who exclusively practice osteopathy. Lastly, the website serves as a platform to support actions working towards the recognition of osteopathy. In 2020, they changed their name to osteopathie.be

Finland

Osteopathy has been a recognized health profession since 1994 in Finland. It is regulated by law along with chiropractors and naprapaths. These professions require at least a four-year education. Currently there are three osteopathic schools in Finland, one which is public and two private ones.

France

Osteopathy is a governmentally recognized profession and has title protection, autorisation d'utiliser le titre d'ostéopathe. The most recent decree regarding osteopathy was enacted in 2014.

Germany

Germany has both osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. There is a difference in the osteopathic education between non-physician osteopaths, physiotherapists, and medical physicians.

Physiotherapists are a recognized health profession and can achieve a degree of "Diploma in Osteopathic Therapy (D.O.T.)". Non-physician osteopaths are not medically licensed. They have an average total of 1200 hours of training, roughly half being in manual therapy and osteopathy, with no medical specialization before they attain their degree. Non-physician osteopaths in Germany officially work under the "Heilpraktiker" law. Heilpraktiker is a separate profession within the health care system. There are many schools of osteopathy in Germany; most are moving toward national recognition although such recognition does not currently exist. In Germany, there are state level rules governing which persons (non-physicians) may call themselves osteopaths.

Portugal

Osteopathy is a governmentally recognized health profession and the title of Osteopath is protected by Law (Act 45/2003, of 22 October, and Act 71/2013, of 2 September). Currently there are eight faculties that teach the four-year degree course of osteopathy (BSc Hon in Osteopathy).

India

Sri Sri University offers BSc and MSc Osteopathy programmes.

New Zealand

The practice of osteopathy is regulated by law, under the terms of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 which came into effect on 18 September 2004. Under the act, it is a legal requirement to be registered with the Osteopathic Council of New Zealand (OCNZ), and to hold an annual practicing certificate issued by them, in order to practice as an osteopath. Each of the fifteen health professions regulated by the HPCA act work within the "Scope of Practice" determined and published by its professional board or council. Osteopaths in New Zealand are not fully licensed physicians. In New Zealand, in addition to the general scope of practice, osteopaths may also hold the Scope of Practice for Osteopaths using western medical acupuncture and related needling techniques.

In New Zealand a course is offered at the Unitec Institute of Technology (Unitec). Australasian courses consist of a bachelor's degree in clinical science (osteopathy) followed by a master's degree. The Unitec double degree programme is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Osteopaths registered and in good standing with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – Osteopathy Board of Australian are eligible to register in New Zealand under the mutual recognition system operating between the two countries. Graduates from programs in every other country are required to complete an assessment procedure.

The scope of practice for US-trained osteopathic physicians is unlimited on an exceptions basis. Full licensure to practice medicine is awarded on an exceptions basis following a hearing before the licensing authorities in New Zealand. Both the Medical Council of New Zealand and the OCNZ regulate osteopathic physicians in New Zealand. Currently, the country has no recognized osteopathic medical schools.

United Kingdom

The first school of osteopathy was established in London in 1917 by John Martin Littlejohn, a pupil of A.T. Still, who had been Dean of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. After many years of existing outside the mainstream of health care provision, the osteopathic profession in the UK was accorded formal recognition by Parliament in 1993 by the Osteopaths Act. This legislation now provides the profession of osteopathy the same legal framework of statutory self-regulation as other healthcare professions such as medicine and dentistry. This Act provides for "protection of title". A person who expressly or implicitly describes themself as an osteopath, osteopathic practitioner, osteopathic physician, osteopathist, osteotherapist, or any kind of osteopath is guilty of an offence unless they are registered as an osteopath.

The General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) regulates the practice of osteopathy under the terms of the Act. Under British law, an osteopath must be registered with the GOsC to practice in the United Kingdom. More than 5,300 osteopaths were registered in the UK as of 2021. The General Osteopathic Council has a statutory duty to promote, develop and regulate the profession of osteopathy in the UK. Its duty is to protect the interests of the public by ensuring that all osteopaths maintain high standards of safety, competence and professional conduct throughout their professional lives. In order to be registered with the General Osteopathic Council an osteopath must hold a recognized qualification that meets the standards as set out by law in the GOsC's Standard of Practice.

Osteopathic medicine is regulated by the General Osteopathic Council, (GOsC) under the terms of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and statement from the GMC. Practising osteopaths will usually have a BS or MSc in osteopathy. Accelerated courses leading to accreditation are available for those with a medical degree and physiotherapists. The London College of Osteopathic Medicine teaches osteopathy only to those who are already physicians.

United States

An osteopathic physician in the United States is a physician trained in the full scope of medical practice, with a degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO). With the increased internationalization of osteopathy, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) recommended in 2010 that the older terms osteopathy and osteopath be reserved for "informal or historical discussions and for referring to previously named entities in the profession and foreign-trained osteopaths", and replaced in the US by osteopathic medicine and osteopathic physician. The American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine made a similar recommendation.

Those trained only in manual osteopathic treatment, generally to relieve muscular and skeletal conditions, are referred to as osteopaths, and are not permitted to use the title DO in the United States to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians.

Naturopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy

Naturopathy

A homeopathic preparation of Hepar sulph – homeopathy can be offered as part of naturopathic treatment.
Claims	"Nature cure", "self-healing"
Related fields	Alternative medicine
Original proponents	Benedict Lust; Sebastian Kneipp
MeSH	D009324
See also	Humorism, heroic medicine, vitalism

Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a form of alternative medicine. A wide array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing" are employed by its practitioners, who are known as naturopaths. Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from outright quackery, like homeopathy, to widely accepted practices like certain forms of psychotherapy. The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine rather than evidence-based medicine, although practitioners may use techniques supported by evidence.

Naturopathic practitioners commonly recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery. Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.

Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice. In addition to condemnations and criticism from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society, naturopaths have repeatedly been denounced as and accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.

Naturopaths frequently campaign for legal recognition in the United States. Naturopathy is illegal in two U.S. states and tightly regulated in many others. Some states have lax regulations, however, and may allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs. While some schools exist for naturopaths, and some jurisdictions allow such practitioners to call themselves doctors, the lack of accreditation, scientific medical training, and quantifiable positive results means they lack the competency of true medical doctors.

History

The term "naturopathy" originates from "natura" (Latin root for birth) and "pathos" (the Greek root for suffering) to suggest "natural healing". Naturopaths claim the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine", Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine, before the term existed.Naturopathy has its roots in the 19th-century Natural Cure movement of Europe. In Scotland, Thomas Allinson started advocating his "Hygienic Medicine" in the 1880s, promoting a natural diet and exercise with avoidance of tobacco and overwork.

The term naturopathy was coined in 1895 by John Scheel, and purchased by Benedict Lust, whom naturopaths consider to be the "Father of U.S. Naturopathy". Lust had been schooled in hydrotherapy and other natural health practices in Germany by Father Sebastian Kneipp; Kneipp sent Lust to the United States to spread his drugless methods. Lust defined naturopathy as a broad discipline rather than a particular method, and included such techniques as hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, and homeopathy, as well as eliminating overeating, tea, coffee, and alcohol. He described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms with "absolute reliance upon the cosmic forces of man's nature". According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first known use of "naturopathy" in print is from 1901.

From 1901, Lust founded the American School of Naturopathy in New York. In 1902, the original North American Kneipp Societies were discontinued and renamed "Naturopathic Societies". In September 1919, the Naturopathic Society of America was dissolved and Benedict Lust founded the American Naturopathic Association to supplant it. Naturopaths became licensed under naturopathic or drugless practitioner laws in 25 states in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Naturopathy was adopted by many chiropractors, and several schools offered both Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) and Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degrees. Estimates of the number of naturopathic schools active in the United States during this period vary from about one to two dozen.

After a period of rapid growth, naturopathy went into decline for several decades after the 1930s. In 1910, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published the Flexner Report, which criticized many aspects of medical education, especially quality and lack of scientific rigour. The advent of penicillin and other "miracle drugs" and the consequent popularity of modern medicine also contributed to naturopathy's decline. In the 1940s and 1950s, a broadening in scope of practice laws led many chiropractic schools to drop their ND degrees, though many chiropractors continued to practice naturopathy. From 1940 to 1963, the American Medical Association campaigned against heterodox medical systems. By 1958, practice of naturopathy was licensed in only five states. In 1968, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a report on naturopathy concluding that naturopathy was not grounded in medical science and that naturopathic education was inadequate to prepare graduates to make appropriate diagnosis and provide treatment; the report recommends against expanding Medicare coverage to include naturopathic treatments. In 1977 an Australian committee of inquiry reached similar conclusions; it did not recommend licensure for naturopaths.

Beginning in the 1970s, there was a revival of interest in the United States and Canada, in conjunction with the "holistic health" movement. As of 2009, fifteen U.S. states, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia licensed naturopathic doctors, and the State of Washington requires insurance companies to offer reimbursement for services provided by naturopathic physicians. On the other hand, some states such as South Carolina and Tennessee prohibit the practice of naturopathy.

The United States IHS (Indian Health Service) began accepting naturopathic doctors in their clinics and practice in 2013, also making loan repayment available to ND's.

In 2015, a former naturopathic doctor, Britt Marie Hermes, began writing critically about her experience being trained in and practicing naturopathic medicine. Her blog garnered a large following among skeptics while enraging some proponents of alternative medicine.

Sebastian Kneipp c. 1898, a Bavarian priest and forefather of naturopathy
Benedict Lust c. 1902, the founder of naturopathy in the U.S.
Britt Marie Hermes c. 2016, a former naturopathic doctor and major critic of naturopathic medicine

Practice

Homeopathic preparations are commonly used by naturopaths. The practice is considered a pseudoscience.

In 2003, a report was presented by Kimball C. Atwood, an American medical doctor and researcher from Newton, Massachusetts, best known as a critic of naturopathic medicine, stating among other criticisms that "The practice of naturopathy is based on a belief in the body's ability to heal itself through a special vital energy or force guiding bodily processes internally".

Diagnosis and treatment concern primarily alternative therapies and "natural" methods that naturopaths claim promote the body's natural ability to heal. Many naturopaths in India now use modern diagnostic techniques in their practice. Naturopaths focus on a holistic approach, avoiding the use of surgery and conventional medicines. Naturopaths aim to prevent illness through stress reduction and changes to diet and lifestyle, often rejecting the methods of evidence-based medicine.

A consultation typically begins with a comprehensive patient interview assessing lifestyle, medical history, emotional tone, and physical features, as well as physical examination. Many naturopaths present themselves as primary care providers, and some naturopathic physicians may prescribe drugs, perform minor surgery, and integrate other conventional medical approaches such as diet and lifestyle counselling with their naturopathic practice. Traditional naturopaths deal exclusively with lifestyle changes, not diagnosing or treating disease. Naturopaths do not generally recommend vaccines and antibiotics, based in part on the early views that shaped the profession, and they may provide alternative remedies even in cases where evidence-based medicine has been shown effective.

Methods

Naturopaths are often opposed to mainstream medicine and take an antivaccinationist stance.

The particular modalities used by a naturopath vary with training and scope of practice. These may include herbalism, homeopathy, acupuncture, nature cures, physical medicine, applied kinesiology, colonic enemas, chelation therapy, color therapy, cranial osteopathy, hair analysis, iridology, live blood analysis, ozone therapy, psychotherapy, public health measures and hygiene, reflexology, rolfing, massage therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine. Nature cures include a range of therapies based on exposure to natural elements such as sunshine, fresh air, or heat or cold, as well as nutrition advice such as following a vegetarian and whole food diet, fasting, or abstention from alcohol and sugar. Physical medicine includes naturopathic, osseous, or soft tissue manipulative therapy, sports medicine, exercise, and hydrotherapy. Psychological counseling includes meditation, relaxation, and other methods of stress management.

A 2004 survey determined the most commonly prescribed naturopathic therapeutics in Washington state and Connecticut were botanical medicines, vitamins, minerals, homeopathy, and allergy treatments. An examination published in 2011 of naturopathic clinic websites in Alberta and British Columbia found that the most commonly advertised therapies were homeopathy, botanical medicine, nutrition, acupuncture, lifestyle counseling, and detoxification.

In 2020, a survey of methods used by naturopaths in fourteen countries reported that 27% of clients received acupuncture, 22% homeopathy, 16% "other energetic medicines", and 13.5% were given hydrotherapy. A mean of 4.0 "treatments" were provided to each customer. One-third (33%) of patients consulted with only the naturopath to manage their primary health concern.

Evidence basis

Naturopathy as a whole lacks an adequate scientific basis, and it is rejected by the medical community. Although it includes valid lifestyle advice from mainstream medicine (healthy sleep, balanced diet, regular exercise), it typically adds a range of pseudoscientific beliefs. Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse. Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings. Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability. According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease". According to Britt Hermes, naturopath student programs are problematic because "As a naturopath [student], you are making justifications to make the rules and to fudge the standards of how to interpret research all along the way. Because if you don't, you're not left with anything, basically".

In 2015, the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; Naturopathy was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found.

Kimball C. Atwood IV writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine,

Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices.

In another article, Atwood writes that "Physicians who consider naturopaths to be their colleagues thus find themselves in opposition to one of the fundamental ethical precepts of modern medicine. If naturopaths are not to be judged "nonscientific practitioners", the term has no useful meaning".

A former licensed naturopathic doctor, Britt Marie Hermes, states that "any product that is sold by a naturopath almost guarantees that there is no reliable scientific data to support whatever health claims are made, and that while some naturopaths claim to only practice evidence based medicine, "the problem is, all naturopaths in an accredited naturopathic program are required to extensively study homeopathy, herbal medicine, energy healing, chiropractic techniques, water therapy" and other pseudoscientific practices. Hermes further notes that, while some naturopaths claim that their method can be effective treatments for psychological disorders, "no naturopathic treatment has been clinically proven to be safe and effective for bipolar disorder or any other condition."

According to Arnold S. Relman, the Textbook of Natural Medicine is inadequate as a teaching tool, as it omits to mention or treat in detail many common ailments, improperly emphasizes treatments "not likely to be effective" over those that are, and promotes unproven herbal remedies at the expense of pharmaceuticals. He concludes that "the risks to many sick patients seeking care from the average naturopathic practitioner would far outweigh any possible benefits".

The Massachusetts Medical Society states, "Naturopathic practices are unchanged by research and remain a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice."

Safety of natural treatments

Naturopaths often recommend exposure to naturally occurring substances, such as sunshine, herbs and certain foods, as well as activities they describe as natural, such as exercise, meditation and relaxation. Naturopaths claim that these natural treatments help restore the body's innate ability to heal itself without the adverse effects of conventional medicine. However, "natural" methods and chemicals are not necessarily safer or more effective than "artificial" or "synthetic" ones, and any treatment capable of eliciting an effect may also have deleterious side effects.

Certain naturopathic treatments offered by naturopaths, such as homeopathy, rolfing, and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery. Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud has stated that naturopathy is "simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery". "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists", says William T. Jarvis. In the 2018 Australian case against Marlyin Bodnar, who advised a mother to treat her infant son's eczema with a raw food diet which nearly led to the child's starvation death, Judge Peter Berman said, "Well intentioned but seriously misguided advice is, as the facts of this case demonstrate, capable of causing great harm and even death to vulnerable children." Furthermore, Britt Hermes criticizes the "pervasive culture of patient blaming" among naturopathic practitioners, where "when something doesn't work for the patient and the patient is not experiencing all of the positive effects and zero side-effects that are promised with the therapy, it's never because the therapy doesn't work, it's because the patient didn't do something right."

Vaccination

Many naturopathy practitioners voice their opposition to vaccination. The reasons for this opposition are based, in part, on the early views which shaped the foundation of this occupation. A naturopathy textbook, co-authored by Joseph Pizzorno, recalls anti-vaccine beliefs associated with the founding of naturopathy in the United States: "a return to nature in regulating the diet, breathing, exercising, bathing and the employment of various forces" in lieu of the smallpox vaccine.

In general, evidence about associations between naturopathy and pediatric vaccination is sparse, but "published reports suggest that only a minority of naturopathic physicians actively support full vaccination". In Washington state from 2000 to 2003, children were significantly less likely to receive immunizations if they had seen a naturopath. A survey of naturopathic students published in 2004 found that students at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine became less likely to recommend vaccinations to their patients and became more distrustful of public health and conventional medicine as they advanced in the program.

The British Columbia Naturopathic Association lists several major concerns regarding the pediatric vaccine schedule and vaccines in general, and the group's policy is to not advocate for or against vaccines. The Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians reports that many naturopaths "customize" the pediatric vaccine schedule.

As of April 25, 2022, a British Columbia government report found that 69.2% of naturopaths reported having received at least two COVID vaccines or receiving a medical exemption. This was much lower than all the other regulated medical professions in the report. The number for two professions – dieticians and physicians/surgeons – was 98%.

As of 2016, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, which is the largest professional organization for licensed naturopaths in the U.S., is "still discussing its stance on vaccinations".

Practitioners

Naturopath practitioners can generally be categorized into three groups: 1) those with a government issued license; 2) those who practice outside of an official status ("traditional naturopaths"); 3) those who are primarily another kind of health professional who also practices naturopathy.

In Switzerland, these divisions fall between those with a federal diploma, those recognized by health insurances, and those with neither federal diploma nor recognition by health insurances. Naturopaths with federal diploma can be divided into four categories: European traditional medicine, Chinese traditional medicine, ayurvedic medicine and homeopathy. The number of listed naturopaths (including traditional healers) in Switzerland rose from 223 in 1970 to 1835 in 2000.

Licensed naturopaths

Licensed naturopaths may be referred to as "naturopathic doctors" or "naturopathic physicians" in 26 US states or territories and 5 Canadian provinces. Licensed naturopaths present themselves as primary care providers. Licensed naturopaths do not receive comparable training to medical doctors in terms of the quality of education or quantity of hours.

In British Columbia, legislation permits licensed naturopaths to use the title "doctor" or "physician". However, section 102 of the bylaw of the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia (CNPBC), the terms "naturopathic" or "naturopathic medicine" must be included anytime the term doctor or physician is used by a member of the CNPBC.

Education

National University of Natural Medicine trains students in naturopathic medicine who are eligible to become licensed in some jurisdictions in North America.

Licensed naturopaths must pass the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX) administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) after graduating from a program accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME). Training in CNME-accredited programs includes basic medical diagnostics and procedures such as rudimentary physical exams and common blood tests, in addition to pseudoscientific modalities, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, and energy modalities.These accredited programs have been criticized for misrepresenting their medical rigor and teaching subjects that are antithetical to the best understandings of science and medicine. The CNME as an accrediting authority has been characterized as unreliable and suffering from conflicts of interest. The naturopathic licensing exam has been called a mystery by those outside the naturopathic professionand criticized for testing on homeopathic remedies, including for the use to treat pediatric emergencies.

Naturopathic doctors are not eligible for medical residencies, which are available exclusively for medical doctors and doctors of osteopathic medicine. There are limited post-graduate "residency" positions available to naturopathic doctors offered through naturopathic schools and naturopathic clinics approved by the CNME. Most naturopathic doctors do not complete such a residency, and naturopathic doctors are not mandated to complete one for licensure, except in the states of Utah and Connecticut. Continuing education in naturopathic modalities for health care professionals varies greatly.

Political activity in the United States

Naturopaths affiliated with the CNME-accredited schools lobby state, provincial, and federal governments for medical licensure and participation in social health programs. The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians represents licensed naturopaths in the United States; the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors represents licensed naturopaths in Canada. Naturopathic lobbying efforts are funded by vitamin and supplement makers and focus on portraying naturopathic education as comparable to medical education received by physicians and on having high professional standards. Medical societies and advocacy groups dispute these claims by citing evidence of licensed naturopaths using pseudoscientific methods without a sound evidence basis and lacking adequate clinical training to diagnose and treat disease competently according to the standard of care. Jann Bellamy has characterized the process by which naturopaths and other practitioners of pseudoscience convince lawmakers to provide them with medical licenses as "legislative alchemy".

Since 2005, the Massachusetts Medical Society has opposed licensure based on concerns that NDs are not required to participate in residency and concerns that the practices of naturopaths included many "erroneous and potentially dangerous claims". The Massachusetts Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners rejected their concerns and recommended licensure. The Massachusetts Medical Society states:

Naturopathic medical school is not a medical school in anything but the appropriation of the word medical. Naturopathy is not a branch of medicine. It is a hodge podge of nutritional advice, home remedies and discredited treatments ... Naturopathic colleges claim accreditation but follow a true "alternative" accreditation method that is virtually meaningless. They are not accredited by the same bodies that accredit real medical schools and while some courses have similar titles to the curricula of legitimate medical schools the content is completely different.

In 2015, a former naturopathic doctor, Britt Marie Hermes, who graduated from Bastyr University and practiced as a licensed ND in Washington and Arizona, began advocating against naturopathic medicine. In addition to opposing further licensure, she believes that NDs should not be allowed to use the titles "doctor" or "physician", and be barred from treating children. She states:

Naturopaths aggressively lobby for laws to issue them medical licenses. I would characterize this political effort as a perverted redefinition of the words "physician", "doctor", "medical school", and "residency" in order to mask the inadequacy of the training provided in naturopathic programs. ND students do not realize that they are taking educational shortcuts and therefore do not possess any demonstrable competencies found in modern medicine.

Traditional naturopaths

Traditional naturopaths are represented in the United States by the American Naturopathic Association (ANA), representing about 1,800 practitioners and the American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA).

The level of naturopathic training varies among traditional naturopaths in the United States. Traditional naturopaths may complete non-degree certificate programs or undergraduate degree programs and generally refer to themselves as naturopathic consultants. These programs often offer online unaccredited degrees, but do not offer comprehensive biomedical education or clinical training.

Traditional naturopathic practitioners surveyed in Australia perceive evidence-based medicine to be an ideological assault on their beliefs in vitalistic and holistic principles. They advocate for the integrity of natural medicine practice.

Naturopaths graduating from accredited programs argued in 2002 that their training used evidence-based scientific principles unlike traditional naturopathic programs, but this claim remains inaccurate.

Regulation

Naturopathy is practiced in many countries and is subject to different standards of regulation and levels of acceptance. The scope of practice varies widely between jurisdictions, with some covering naturopathy under medical regulation and allowing practitioners to prescribe drugs and perform minor surgery, while other jurisdictions outlaw naturopathy entirely.