Easier Said than Done: The Politics of Medical Integration

The WHO has recently been advocating for a more inclusive approach within healthcare systems, urging the integration of traditional medicines with biomedicine. Which traditions are perceived as authentic, authoritative or legitimate is as much a political question as it is a conceptual or scientific one. This paper will pose the question: is integration in fact desirable? Proponents may argue that integration will produce a number of benefits: more efficient use of healthcare resources, greater range of patient choice, and respect for the intellectual contributions of traditional medicines. Yet, I will argue that given the deep ontological divides across traditions, traditional medical practices are often incommensurable with biomedical paradigms, meaning integration is ultimately infeasible. Furthermore, to the extent that integration is pursued, it is likely to replicate colonial attitudes toward indigenous practices and repeat rather than remedy the very forms of epistemic injustice it would claim to avoid.