Does this mean anthroposophic medicine has been endorsed by the World Health Organization?
No, this is not an endorsement of medical practice or efficacy. The WHO department for Traditional, Complementary and Integrative medicine does not endorse medical systems. What it does present are what are considered to be the current minimum training requirements for competency in anthroposophic medicine and therapies (as shared and determined by the international groups that work to develop and certify the different anthroposophic trainings).

How did this develop? What was the process?
It is a process that began in 2016 after a large integrative medicine meeting in Stuttgart. Seven years later the benchmarks have now appeared. You can read more about how the training benchmarks document came about and the process that has been followed:  https://www.anthromedics.org/BAS-0999-EN

What is in the Training Benchmarks?
It contains a glossary of terms, a short history of anthroposophic medicine, plus sample core curriculum, an outline of required training hours, and process for certification within each therapeutic field.

What does this mean for anthroposophic medicine moving forward?
It will bring a new level of visibility. Being perceived on a broader basis surely carries both opportunities and challenges. It will invite curiosity, inquiry, and additional scrutiny. Here are three “seed” thoughts about the kinds of dialogue spaces its publication opens—both to the broader public and within our own
medical movement.

Curiosity and Inquiry
An important part of the process was a December 2018 meeting held in Berlin. That gathering brought together representatives of the different AM therapies (nurses, body therapists, arts therapists, doctors, eurythmists, psychologists), several members of the WHO TCI department, and a variety of invited international experts from other disciplines (such as Ayurveda, TCM, Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Public Health). It was not at all clear ahead of the meeting how AM would be perceived. Would there be skeptical criticism? Would there be fierce debates about whether AM belonged within this broader integrative medicine community? The answer was no. The experts from the other healing traditions were instead very interested and engaged. While representatives from the WHO gave structure to the meeting, the main content was a conversation and exploration between the AM practitioners and other TCI experts. Some conversation topics included “What do you mean when you speak about the ‘soul’”? (and learning that it is used differently in Ayurveda than in AM) and “why does it take so long to become a eurythmy therapist?” A new step coming out of the meeting was the inclusion of a third pathway for people from other types of medical practice to learn anthroposophic medicine. The training pathways have not been diluted in any way, however. The outlined trainings remain rigorous, with the opportunity in future to adjust and amend them, as determined by the anthroposophic therapeutic community.

One hope for the training benchmarks is that it will bring a step of greater visibility so that individuals from many diverse destiny paths, in many parts of the world, may find, encounter, and work with the healing work of anthroposophic medicine.

Developing a Consensus Guideline in a Time of Challenge and Polarization
Anthroposophic medicine’s century celebration in 2020 arrived at an unusual time in the world. Just when there was enthusiasm for large gatherings and shared celebrations, we instead had to cancel activities and delve much deeper into individual experiences of priority and self-orientation. While the last three years have been an essential time for individualization, they have not been a time for consensus—in nearly any aspect of life. Information, alone, now rarely brings feelings of security or agreement. We test to see whether what is being offered matches our own inner feeling for truth. The unpredictable and extended path towards publication of the benchmarks left space for all kinds of different interpretation and worry—what do the benchmarks contain? What is being given away? It is true to our core spiritual impulse and task?

To answer those questions, each individual person will need to look at the document for themselves. There is no way to prescriptively answer all those questions. If you read through the benchmarks document, however, you will see that it mainly includes sample core curriculum and course hours for the different types of trainings. It is, at its heart, a training document. While it is just now officially published, work to implement the agreed-upon training content and components has already been underway for the last five years.

What can personally be shared, as a member of the international accreditation panel for the physician trainings over those five years, is that doctors’ trainings are being offered with amazing diversity! Some trainings meet eight times a year for a long weekend over the course of 2-3 years. Some meet for a week, just once a year, with smaller regional or online meetings in between. Some work with broad themes and a small core faculty, some bring a very detailed list of specialized topics and a huge cohort of teachers. Different countries and continents reveal different personalities, different folk souls, different styles, different treasures, different ways of working out of anthroposophic insights. We are and will remain a diverse, creative, evolving and dynamic community.

Context and Communication
Many people have found, even as very experienced practitioners, that it is not always easy to explain what an anthroposophic therapy is or what it looks like as a whole medical system. It’s not even easy to agree on an “elevator speech” amongst a group that is deeply committed to anthroposophic practice and the insights of spiritual science. Part of the beauty of our activity is that people experience the truth of anthroposophy in so many deeply individual ways. It’s alive for each of us in a slightly different way. Yet, it is helpful to have some materials which have been developed out of sincere effort and collaborative thought.

In the U.S., a recent submission for continuing medical education credits (CME’s) for the physician’s training was not approved—not specifically because of any of the content, but because it was felt by the reviewing committee that they “did not know enough about anthroposophic medicine.” We believe that future rounds of CME credit submissions may now be met in new way. As a medical movement we are constantly challenged to develop the capacities to speak in a language and format that is accessible to the broader medical community. The training benchmarks offer a new, clear description of what our educational work offers to the world.

The next, new century of anthroposophic medicine has arrived with burning questions about priorities, communication, association, medical freedom and decision-making. Those conversations are essential, part of a next birth-step in the growth and evolution of our medical impulse. We need to keep taking
both inward steps and outwards steps. As someone deeply involved in training activities for many years, I warmly welcome this publication. It will open new doors and enable many new important conversations.

Please read through the document for yourself and see how well it speaks to your own truth.