Complementary and alternative medicine might best be
kept separatefrom conventional treatments
Sales of herbal, homoeopathic, and other complementary remedies
are growing fast, and increasing numbers of people are visiting
complementary practitioners.1 The international
market forcomplementary and alternative medicine is now worth a
considerableamount of moneyan estimated $21.2bn in the United
States in 1997, more than half of which was paid directly by patients,2and £450m in Britain in 1998, with 90% purchased
privately.3
Two articles in this issue illustrate the suspicion of complementary medicine
that still exists among many medical practitionersand the potential
for integrating complementary and orthodox treatments.45 Complementary medicine is marginalised in thehealthcare systems of many countries, but calls for a more
integrated approach are growing louder and seem to be havingan
effect.68 Hostility to
complementary medicine amongdoctors is starting to erode. Basic
courses in various complementarytherapies are now available in many
medical schools in Britain9 and the United
States,10 albeit on an optional basis. Somedoctors go on to do more advanced training, enabling them to
offer complementary therapies alongside orthodox ones.
In response to growing popular demand, certain complementary
therapies no longer have to be paid for by patients in some
countries. For example, in Germany, where complementary medicineis
used regularly by more than half the population, many conventional
practitioners offer complementary therapies, and some of theseare
reimbursable by insurance schemes.11 In
Switzerland, Sweden,Denmark, and Finland non-medically trained
therapists can applyfor official authorisation to practise. In
Austria, Belgium,France, Spain, and Italy, however, complementary
therapiessuch as chiropractic and osteopathy can be provided only byregistered medical practitioners. Are we seeing the start ofa
takeover by orthodox practitioners, and, if so, how will this affect the
popularity of complementary medicine? What willhappen if integration
becomes the norm and complementary medicineis brought into the fold
of scientific evaluation and regulation?Will it lose its appeal?
The trend towards official recognition of complementary medicine
comes at a time when evidence based medicine is in the ascendancyand
professionals and patients are more aware than ever beforeof the
need for critical evaluation of the effects of medicalinterventions.
Efforts are increasing to ensure that safetyis not compromised and
that public money is not wasted on ineffective or harmful treatments. Moves are
afoot in many countries totighten regulatory procedures for all
types of practitionerand medical product, but these have not always
been greetedwith enthusiasm by proponents of complementary medicine.
Thoughthere are still glaring gaps in the evidence base for many
orthodox treatments, the evidence base for complementary medicineis
even weaker.12 So what is the basis of its
popular appeal?Does it reflect public disdain for, or mistrust of,
orthodoxscience or concerns about the way in which medical care isdelivered?
Complementary and alternative therapies are usually used alongside
conventional treatments, rather than as a substitute. The typical
European user of complementary medicine is a young or middleaged
woman who is well educated and health conscious.13
Users are often looking for help with problems such as back pain,
asthma, arthritis, migraine, menopausal symptoms, and anxietyor
stress, for which conventional medicine has been tried andfound
wanting, but these therapies are also resorted to bypeople with life
threatening diseases such as cancer and AIDS.14
Complementary therapies are seen as more "natural" and having fewer side effects
than conventional treatments. The enthusiasmfor complementary
medicine shows people's desire to help themselves,as well their
frustration with the limitations of conventionalmedicine. The
holistic and patient centred approach of manycomplementary
therapists appeals, as does the sense of identificationand
empowerment gained from their explanations and philosophiesof care.15 Users appreciate the greater amount of time devotedto the consultation than is usually the case with conventional
practitioners, the attention to individual personality and
preferences, the opportunities for involvement and choice, the attention to
their emotional state and coping style, and theempathy provided by
complementary medicine practitioners.16
For some users, the appeal of complementary medicine lies inits
dissimilarity from conventional medicine and the fact that
complementary therapists are untrammelled by the bureaucraciesof
public health systems. Once complementary medicine is integratedwith
conventional medicine, it is likely that complementarytherapies will
be added to the therapeutic armamentarium oforthodox practitioners,
who will then control access to them. This may enhance their acceptability to
the medical profession,especially if these treatments pass the
efficacy test, butit could reduce their distinctiveness, and hence
their appeal,to patients.
Ultimately, however, for most patients this power struggle between
health professionals and therapeutic philosophies is less important
than its potential impact on the overall quality of healthcare.
Progress in this arena must be judged by the extent towhich
proponents of complementary medicine are willing to acceptevaluation
and regulation and the extent to which orthodox practitioners are prepared to
improve their interpersonal skills.
Competing interests: AC has received research funds and hasbeen reimbursed for speaking engagements by various manufacturersof prescription-only and over the counter medicines. Picker
Institute Europe has been paid by health care providers tocarry out
surveys of their patients' views and experiences.
References
Ernst E. Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative
medicine: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 2000;78:
252-7.[ISI][Medline]
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van
Rompay M, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States,
1990-1997. JAMA 1998;280: 1569-75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Thomas KJ, Nicholl JP, Coleman P. Use and expenditure on
complementary medicine in England: a population based survey.
Complement Ther Med 2001;9: 2-11.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Berman BM. Integrative approaches to pain management: how to
get the best of both worlds. BMJ 2003;326: 1320.[Free Full Text]
Baldwin E. Time for a fresh look at complementary medicine.
BMJ 2003;326: 1322.[Free Full Text]
Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health. Setting
the agenda for the future. London: Prince of Wales Foundation for
Integrated Health, 2003.
Bodeker G. Lessons on integration from the developing
world's experience. BMJ 2001;322: 164-7.[Free Full Text]
World Health Organization. WHO traditional medicine
strategy 2002-2005. Geneva: WHO, 2002.
Owen DK, Lewith G, Stephens CR. Can doctors respond to
patients' increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicine?
BMJ 2001;322: 154-7.[Free Full Text]
Wetzel MS, Eisenberg DM, Kaptchuk TJ. Courses involving
complementary and alternative medicine at US medical schools. JAMA
1998;280: 784-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Tuffs A. Three out of four Germans have used complementary
or natural remedies. BMJ 2002;325: 990.[Free Full Text]
Vickers A. Complementary medicine. BMJ 2000;321:
683-6.[Free Full Text]
Coulter A, Magee H, eds. The European patient of the
future. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2003.
Barnett H. The Which? guide to complementary therapies.
London: Which, 2002.
Paterson C, Britten N. `Doctors can't help much': the
search for an alternative. Br J Gen Pract 1999;49: 626-9.[ISI]
Zollman C, Vickers A. ABC of complementary medicine:
Complementary medicine and the patient. BMJ 1999;319: 1486-9.[Free Full Text]
DISCLAIMER: All
information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for
general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the
knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended
as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate
is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in
consultation with your health care provider.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"