Complementary therapies, within Health Service arenas, have traditionally been associated with 'naturalistic' approaches to health care provision rather than with 'reductionist' practices. Evidence does exist, however, that certain approaches to complementary therapies can exist comfortably within both camps. Subsequent debates within nursing literature, surrounding the place and validity of reductionist approaches to health care provision and their relationship with the 'counter-part' naturalistic (i.e. empowerment) approaches to health care, have existed for some time now. Naturalistic (inductive and interpretive) and reductionistic (deductive and fixed) classifications of health care provision have continued to be viewed, by many health care professionals, as apposite, divided and allopathic. This appears to be even more so recently where elements of reductionist health care have been portrayed in terms that serve to undervalue and undermine its contribution. This is whilst naturalistic approaches, in far more favourable terms, have gone on to be 'championed' by many health professions. This account sets out to investigate how this situation impacts upon the discipline of complementary therapies. It seeks to do so by defining the nature and purpose of these differing approaches - particularly within the boundaries of health promotion activities. It goes on to suggest that our current practices/viewpoints, related to these particular approaches, could be considered in themselves to be flawed, limiting and reductionist with a potential to unwittingly create a counterproductive practice ethic. As an alternative to this situation, it is suggested that by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of both stances it is possible to find common ground which marries together the more favourable aspects of these approaches. This can subsequently provide a clearer and more productive consensus for complementary therapies and other naturalistic-based practices to move forward.