Newsletters > Winter 1999 > Freedom of Speech and Natural Health, by Diane Miller, JD

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So what does the 1st Amendment have to do with natural health? I’d say A LOT! In the last five years criminal prosecutions and civil injunctions have been launched by Minnesota government against alternative health practitioners including licensed physicians accused of practicing medicine outside their official standard of care, a dentist that removed mercury fillings, a naturopath with a successful 12 year practice and clientele, sellers of vitamins and herbs, and a farmer selling immune colostrum. What did all of these victims have in common? UNLAWFUL SPEECH! In short, you cannot speak the truth in an attempt to help a sick person get well, even if the sick person begs you, or pays you, unless you are a licensed physician, and even then, if you are a licensed physician or dentist you had better speak only what the “reasonable standard of care” allows you to speak or you may lose your license.

One reason for these bizarre circumstances is an outdated licensing law that does not reflect the educated consumer culture we currently live in. The Minnesota law states that a person is engaged in the practice of medicine (which requires a license) if she/he does the following: “offers or undertakes to prevent or to diagnose, correct, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, devices or instrumentalities, any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity or defect of any person;” Minnesota Statute 147.081 Subd. 3.(3).1996

Well, it is pretty hard to help someone that is sick without speaking or expressing oneself. That’s why many of the legal actions against alternative practitioners were based on what a health care provider “said” to an undercover agent or client.

This whole dilemma dates back to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when science was beginning to be thought of as the source of all truth and physicians were thought of as the only persons that were educated enough in the sciences to advise about cures. As science grew, many traditional and natural healers were forbidden to practice because they were not “educated” in the proper scientific manner and their remedies were not proven scientifically. How this plays out in 1998 is that it takes upwards of 50-100 million dollars to run a double blind study and prove a cure, so it pretty much leaves it up to the big pharmaceutical companies to provide marketable remedies and physicians licensed to advise and distribute these drugs. So there you have it!

Ah, but this is not the end of the story. In the 1990’s so many Minnesotans went out and searched for complementary or alternative and natural health care options that is was documented that at least two thirds of all Minnesotans use complimentary and alternative healing therapies. Well what does this mean? Are there practitioners out there using UNLAWFUL SPEECH, offering cures, helping people get well, saying things that they dare not say for fear of being hauled into the clink? You got it. That is exactly what is going on. Minnesota is loaded with smart, courageous and fearless practitioners that know that the law is ancient and outdated. I guess they would rather help a needy person get well than worry about being prosecuted for practicing medicine. I figure these alternative health care providers are just about as saintly as a person can get. They have integrity. They are incredibly dedicated to helping people heal. They have a dedication to learning and preserving age old wisdom. They have helped an awfully lot of Minnesotans. Besides, what is so bad about SPEAKING THE TRUTH and imparting age old wisdom to a sick person who wants to hear all of their options?