| |
|
Alternative medicine is a broad term for any method of medical treatment that stands outside the framework of mainstream conventional medicine (compare evidence-based medicine).
It is worth noting that practitioners of some treatments and techniques (for example, hypnosis, acupuncture) often described as 'alternative' are, in fact, accepted by the mainstream, and are not regarded as alternative by many in the mainstream. The often bitter conflict between the more extreme partisans on both sides does not reflect the reality of a modern health system. Also, the definition of what is and isn't 'alternative' constantly changes, generally as result of research. It is not a fixed category.
While alternative medicine is usually supposed to replace conventional treatments, the combination of alternative and conventional medicine is referred to as complementary medicine. The term Integrative medicine was invented by Andrew Weil, MD and is said to refer to "the best of both conventional and complementary medicine". Collectively, all theses variations on alternative medicine is often referred to as complementary and alternative medicine (or simply as CAM).
Some kinds of alternative medicine can be practiced by the individual without the need for working with an alternative medicine practitioner. Others need to be carried out though alternative medicine clinics, GPs or businesses which advertise such services. When the service is performed by a conventional physician it is called complementary or integrative medicine.
Legal jurisdictions differ as to which branches of alternative medicine are legal, which are regulated, and which (if any) are provided by a state health service. Some practitioners and branches of alternative medicine have been investigated by state or national agencies for health-related fraud (commonly known as quackery), and in a few cases criminal charges have been brought.
The most often used branches of alternative medicine in the United States are (Eisenberg et al, 1998):
Other branches of alternative/complementary medicine include:
The primary concern for those who do not support alternative medicine is that there is often no proper scientific verification that they actually work. Some of the studies cited in support of alternative medicine are not considered up to the normal double blind peer reviewed standard.
In the United States, conventional medicine is represented (some say dominated) by physicians at hospitals and medical schools. It is supported by state boards which rate and license professionals, and by the FDA which officially approves or disapproves drugs and some therapies.
Alternative medicine chafes at these restrictions and seeks to bring new ideas to the people more quickly than the established procedures allow, which sometimes results in conflict. Mainstreamers maintain that official oversight is needed to prevent quackery, while advocates of alternative medicine loudly protest that their contributions and discoveries are being unfairly dismissed, overlooked or suppressed.
In countries where healthcare is paid for by State or privately-funded medical insurance systems, alternative therapies are frequently not covered by these systems and these treatments are paid for by the patient. This leads to a concern that gullible or desperate people may be being exploited.
In addition, there is a concern that people may delay seeking conventional treatment, whilst they undergo alternative therapies. This may be dangerous to their health.
Finally, critics of alternative medicine are concerned that some branches are not properly regulated. This means that there is no external control on practitioners and no real way of knowing what training or expertise they may possess.
The science community argues that it is impossible to use testimonials, hearsay and mystical arguments as proof, because observer bias distorts recollection. The only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered.
Proponents of alternative medicine counter by saying that you cannot use existing testing methods for certain forms of alternative treatment methods. Furthermore, much evidence dismissed as hearsay in fact represents clinical experience. Many branches of alternative medicine place great value upon the clinical experience of the practitioner.
In addition, some proponents of alternative medicine argue that the historical lack of evaluation of conventional medical practices means that it cannot be truly claimed that conventional medicine practitioners relied upon the scientific method for their results. However conventional medical practitioners and scientists would not agree that this means that science should not underpin medical practice.
Proponents of alternative medicine argue that some branches of alternative medicine were viewed as quackery in the past, but are accepted as mainstream medicine now.
Some mainstream doctors and some scientists agree that new research may be revealing evidence that a small number of alternative health treatments might be effective (Michelson et al, 2003; Gonsalkorale et al, 2003; Berga et al, 2003). They are treatments claimed to have resulted from peer-reviewed studies. As such, in a few cases, the boundary lines between alternative and mainstream medicine may change over time. In principle, methods considered alternative at one time may later be adopted by conventional medicine and treatments.
From the 19th century and on into the early 20th century, new ideas about infection and disease were pioneered by Semmelweis and Pasteur, only to meet opposition and ridicule from an establishment which refused to examine the claims of these pioneers. Ignored or ostracized, these pioneers and others like Lister stolidly continued to work and amass evidence showing their theories were true, but it took years before the mainstream adopted them. At the same time, numerous snake oil salesmen sold remedies which had little physical benefit, and in some cases caused serious physical harm. Regulatory agencies like the US's FDA and NIH sought to remedy this contradiction by creating standards to verify the benefits offered by medicines, and a great number of falsifyable drugs and treatments were discarded as a result.
Overview
Branches of alternative medicine
Support for and concerns about alternative medicine
Support
Advocates of alternative medicine point to a number of different general arguments that tend to support the validity of using alternative methods of treatment to treat specific medical conditions. Concerns
Science and alternative medicine
While mainstream conventional medicine is commonly thought of as relying on the scientific method for results, as stated above in one viewpoint, as much as 85% of current medical practice has not been scientifically validated. Large scale trials of new drugs which are usually funded by pharmaceutical companies are undertaken to see if they really are better than the alternatives. Medical research writing companies often ghostwrite drug research papers, which peer reviewed respectable journals like NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ have been unable to prevent from being published (Flanagin 1998, Larkin 1999).Research methodology and alternative medicine
Experimental evaluation of alternative medicine is often difficult. Some of the problems that arise (Ernst, 2003) are:
These research design difficulties make it difficult for skeptical researchers to do meaningful double-blind research that proponents of alternatives will accept as being valid research. Nevertheless, hundreds of new research articles are being published on the broad area of alternative medicine weekly.History of alternative medicine
References
Dictionary definitions
Journals dedicated to alternative medicine research
Research articles cited in the text
Other works that discuss alternative medicine
External links
General information about alternative medicine
Advocacy of alternative medicine
Critiques of alternative medicine