An Intriguing Conundrum - What Is
Alternative Medicine?
What
is alternative medicine? The answer to this conundrum is
dependent not only upon the discipline of the protagonists but also on
geographical considerations. Consider the following two examples:
(1) The Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation community regularly applies the
technique of
biofeedback (which is
a non-medical procedure
that conducts the measurement of a subject's particular bodily
functions, such
as blood pressure, heart rate, etc). However, biofeedback is regarded
as an
alternative method within
the
medical fraternity as a whole.
(2) Certain herbal
remedies are classified as mainstream
throughout Europe whereas, in the
United States,
they are regarded as
alternative techniques.
There
are many in the mainstream community who voice their
criticism concerning
CAM
(Complementary and
Alternative Medicine). One such critic is Dr Barrie Cassileth (who conducts research in complementary
and
alternative medicine, and has written many works on alternative cancer
treatments). She has eloquently summarised the position in the
following way:
“There are a
great many mainstream practitioners who are not at all happy with CAM,
nor with
recent attempts to integrate
CAM
into
mainstream medicine, or even with a distinct NIH (National Institute of
Health)
research category for “alternative medicine”. There continues to be
voiced
heated opposition to the inclusion of
CAM
in
so much as it is regarded as a "pseudo science" which is based upon
"absurd beliefs". Such critics decry the fact that
CAM
has deviated somewhat from certain basic scientific principles which
have been
exemplified in the realms of homeopathy and therapeutic touch. In 1997,
four
Nobel Laureates and other eminent scientists sent a signed letter to
the US
Senate Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety highly critical of the
lack of
constructive ideas and scientific rigor in OAM-supported research."
The NCCAM
(National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) have
issued
guidance which states that remedies that have previously been
designated as not
having been verified may indeed be incorporated into conventional
medicine once
they had been shown to be safe and effective.
A
number of scientists share this point of view and are of
the opinion that as soon as a treatment has been tested rigorously,
then it
will be of little importance whether or not it was originally
classified as
alternative. The most important consideration is that the treatment has
been
found to be not only effective but, crucially, safe as well. In such a
case, it
will be readily accepted. According to this school of thought, it is
quite
feasible for a remedy or technique to change categories from, say, a
method
that has been proved to be effective to one that has been disproved, or
vice
versa. Such changes would be based on further knowledge of its
performance or
lack of performance, whichever was appropriate.
Influential
proponents of the NCCAM position include:
George Lundberg, former
editor of the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA)
Phil Fontanarosa, Senior
Editor of JAMA
Richard Dawkins,
Professor of the Public Understanding of
Science at
Oxford
University
Stephen Barrett, founder
and operator of Quackwatch (which is
an American non-profit organisation
that offers advise to the public on alternative medicine remedies that
are
either ineffective or have yet to be verified).
Alternatives
– How To Succeed
Peter
Radford writes Articles with Websites on a
wide range of subjects. Alternative Medicine
Articles cover Background, Definitions, Traditional Comparison,
Contemporary
Use.
HisWebsite
contains over 60
Alternative Medicine Articles
View
his Website
at:
alternatives-how-to-succeed.com
This Article may be reprinted
so long as the
Resource Box remains in tact.
| 