Ostendorf G M
Versicherungsmedizin. 1994 Oct 1;46(5):174-7.
An expert opinion on genuine naturopathy cures which have widely been integrated into so-called "medical-school" treatment usually presents no problem. Difficulties may arise, however, when evaluating so-called alternative or unconventional methods, as it is typical for these to be based on hypothetical thinking patterns, and more so, as there is no proof of action in the postulated fields of indication that would meet current standards. Here, it is the task of the expert to determine whether the assertions of the appliers of these methods are comprehensible and substantiated and whether the methods may be considered medically indicated for the individual case. The claim of those practicing these methods that they are the only ones capable of judging them must be denied in principle. To determine if there is a medical indication for treatment by a non-medical practitioner in any individual case, the criteria applied should be basically the same as for medical treatment by a physician. Also, according to a judgment by the German Federal Court, a non-medical practitioner using invasive methods must meet the same standards of knowledge and advanced training as any general practitioner working in this field.
对于已广泛融入所谓“医学院校”治疗的真正自然疗法的专家意见通常不存在问题。然而，在评估所谓的替代或非常规方法时可能会出现困难，因为这些方法通常基于假设性思维模式，而且更重要的是，在所假定的适应症领域中没有符合当前标准的作用证据。在此，专家的任务是确定这些方法的应用者的主张是否可理解且有依据，以及这些方法是否可被视为针对个别病例的医学适应症。原则上必须否定那些实践这些方法的人声称只有他们自己能够评判这些方法的说法。为了确定在任何个别病例中由非医学从业者进行治疗是否有医学适应症，所应用的标准应与医生进行医学治疗时基本相同。此外，根据德国联邦法院的一项判决，使用侵入性方法的非医学从业者必须达到与该领域任何全科医生相同的知识和进阶培训标准。
