Natural Doesn’t Always Mean Better – How to Deal with the Appeal to Nature in the Doctor’s Office
"Herbs rather than chemicals." Doctors are hearing similar statements more and more often. This attitude reflects the so-called appeal to nature – a logical fallacy based on the assumption that natural means better and safer. In academic literature, this type of thinking is more broadly referred to as the naturalistic fallacy. Such reasoning significantly influences not only patients’ decisions but often also those of healthcare professionals themselves.
Instinct Versus Rationality
The popularity of “natural” has deep roots. Nature evokes feelings of safety, purity, and a return to something original. But this instinct often outweighs rational evaluation of efficacy and risk.
Also noteworthy is the phenomenon of true self bias, in which people perceive chemical interventions as a disruption of their authenticity, while natural approaches are seen as more gentle. This impression can influence healthcare providers as well – whether in choosing herbal remedies or avoiding “artificial” solutions.
How Not to Fall for the Fallacy
Logic often warns of the so-called is → ought fallacy. It means that simply because something is natural doesn’t automatically make it right or healthy. So, if someone deems a substance safe merely because it exists in nature, they are falling for this error in reasoning.
Bioethicists highlight this as one of the most common fallacies, which can lead to poor decisions in medicine. The lay idea that being healthy means “living in harmony with nature” may be appealing, but medical decisions should be based on evidence and data, not romanticized notions.
The preference for “natural” can sway decisions even when clear facts are available. A typical example is the rejection of effective methods like hormonal contraception or vaccination in favor of “more natural” paths with higher failure risks. Patients also often assess the same drug differently depending on whether it’s labeled “natural” or “synthetic” – even when the composition is identical.
Sensations That Don’t Help
Research shows that the preference for natural products is not limited to patients with alternative leanings. It appears to be a widespread phenomenon across cultures and socioeconomic groups. In areas such as psychiatry, gynecology, or chronic disease prevention, patients frequently request herbal supplements and natural approaches.
Alongside traditionally known substances like St. John’s Wort (which affects the metabolism of many drugs) or echinacea (popular for colds, though with mixed efficacy data), new “natural sensations” have emerged in recent years. These are often promoted on social media, by influencers, or within wellness communities. Their effects, however, tend to be overestimated or misunderstood. Here are a few examples:
- Ashwagandha – an adaptogen with supposed effects on stress and sleep, but it may affect thyroid function, increase sedation, and interact with anxiolytics.
- Maca – a natural stimulant whose impact on the endocrine system is not well studied. Particularly unsuitable for women with hormonal imbalances.
- CBD (cannabidiol) – a cannabis-derived substance used for anxiety, pain, and sleep disorders, which may affect blood clotting (interaction with warfarin)
Did you like this article? Would you like to comment on it? Write to us. We are interested in your opinion. We will not publish it, but we will gladly answer you.
- AI Can Also Lie to Cancer Patients. How Should Doctors Respond?
- How Can AI Improve Lung Cancer Detection Directly in GP Clinics?
- Virtual Reality Helps Detect Autism Earlier and More Accurately Than Traditional Methods
- Night Shifts May Pose a Higher Risk of Asthma for Women
- Natural Doesn’t Always Mean Better – How to Deal with the Appeal to Nature in the Doctor’s Office