{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014844804318488529, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002699055330634278, 'mean_word_length': 6.164251207729468, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Culture of Dissent: Australian Naturopaths’ Perspectives on Practitioner Regulation

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.