Related Experiment Videos
The polarized debate over complementary and alternative medicine.
1College of Pharmacy, and Pain Management Center, University Hospitals and Clinics, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City 84112-5820, USA. alipman@pharm.utah.edu
Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy
|November 26, 2003
Summary
The scientific validity and integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are debated following a 2002 policy report. Discussions cover arguments for and against CAM, opposing viewpoints, and the need for further study.
Area of Science:
- Integrative medicine
- Health policy analysis
Background:
- The 2002 White House Commission report spurred significant debate on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
- Discussions involve the scientific standing and appropriate role of CAM within conventional healthcare systems.
Purpose of the Study:
- To discuss the arguments surrounding the integration of CAM into mainstream medicine.
- To outline the positions of organizations opposing CAM.
- To present arguments advocating for further investigation into CAM's role.
Main Methods:
- Literature review and analysis of policy statements.
- Synthesis of arguments presented in the debate on CAM integration.
- Description of organizational stances on CAM.
Main Results:
- The debate encompasses diverse viewpoints on CAM's efficacy and place in healthcare.
- Significant opposition exists, alongside calls for more rigorous scientific study.
- Policy and public discourse have been shaped by these contrasting perspectives.
Conclusions:
- The integration of CAM into mainstream medicine remains a complex issue with ongoing debate.
- Further research is warranted to scientifically evaluate CAM modalities.
- Understanding the multifaceted arguments is crucial for informed healthcare policy decisions.