A Culture of Dissent: Australian Naturopaths’ Perspectives on Practitioner Regulation

R. Canaway
{"title":"A Culture of Dissent: Australian Naturopaths’ Perspectives on Practitioner Regulation","authors":"R. Canaway","doi":"10.1177/1533210109360308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the recommendations in 2006 that naturopaths and Western herbal medicine practitioners be more closely regulated, there have been no moves toward state-mandated (statutory) registration or licensure of naturopaths in any Australian state or territory. Debate within the naturopathic profession on the appropriateness of statutory practitioner regulation has historically contributed to dissent and the creation of organizational factions. In turn, the opposing factions and resulting disunity are disincentives for government endorsement of statutory registration. This article provides an overview of the naturopathic profession in Australia and the regulatory quest, highlighting how professional marginalization and the pursuit of state protection have fueled the push for statutory registration. Considering the extent of public support for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices, the unification of the dissenting factions within the naturopathic profession could create a powerful group, one in which current self-regulatory mechanisms might be more effective, so negating some of the perceived needs for statutory regulation. However, with the increasing use of CAM and most health professions regulated via registration Acts, there are significant arguments to support statutory registration for naturopaths in a manner similar to other health care professionals.","PeriodicalId":10611,"journal":{"name":"Complementary Health Practice Review","volume":"362 5","pages":"136 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complementary Health Practice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1533210109360308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Despite the recommendations in 2006 that naturopaths and Western herbal medicine practitioners be more closely regulated, there have been no moves toward state-mandated (statutory) registration or licensure of naturopaths in any Australian state or territory. Debate within the naturopathic profession on the appropriateness of statutory practitioner regulation has historically contributed to dissent and the creation of organizational factions. In turn, the opposing factions and resulting disunity are disincentives for government endorsement of statutory registration. This article provides an overview of the naturopathic profession in Australia and the regulatory quest, highlighting how professional marginalization and the pursuit of state protection have fueled the push for statutory registration. Considering the extent of public support for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices, the unification of the dissenting factions within the naturopathic profession could create a powerful group, one in which current self-regulatory mechanisms might be more effective, so negating some of the perceived needs for statutory regulation. However, with the increasing use of CAM and most health professions regulated via registration Acts, there are significant arguments to support statutory registration for naturopaths in a manner similar to other health care professionals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同意见的文化:澳大利亚自然疗法对从业者监管的看法
尽管2006年建议对自然疗法和西方草药从业者进行更严格的监管,但在澳大利亚的任何一个州或地区,都没有采取国家强制(法定)注册或许可自然疗法的行动。在自然疗法行业中,关于法定从业者监管的适当性的争论历来导致了不同意见和组织派别的产生。反过来,对立的派系和由此产生的不团结阻碍了政府认可法定登记。本文概述了澳大利亚的自然疗法行业和监管要求,强调了专业边缘化和对国家保护的追求如何推动了法定注册。考虑到公众对补充和替代医学(CAM)实践的支持程度,自然疗法行业内不同派系的统一可能会形成一个强大的团体,在这个团体中,当前的自我监管机制可能会更有效,因此否定了一些法定监管的感知需求。然而,随着辅助医学的使用越来越多,以及大多数通过注册法案管理的卫生专业,有重要的论点支持自然治疗师以类似于其他卫生保健专业人员的方式进行法定注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical Meditation Teacher: A New Role for Health Professionals Vitamin B2: Riboflavin Does Vitamin E and C Supplementation Improve the Recovery From Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery? Mythology of Antioxidant Vitamins? Folic Acid: Beyond Metabolism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1