The Proper Role of Evidence in Complementary/Alternative Medicine

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (1):7-18 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article we explore the role evidence ought to play in complementary and alternative medicine. First, we consider the claim that evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials cannot be obtained for CAMs. Second, we consider various claims to the effect that there are ways of obtaining evidence that do not make use of RCTs. We argue that there is no good reason why CAM should be exempted from the general requirement that treatments undergo evaluation by RCT. Third, we consider two implications for health care policy. First, many activities in conventional medicine have never been rigorously evaluated and are widely in use nonetheless. We argue that this fails to provide a reason for exempting CAM from a demand for evidence. Second, CAM use may be compared to a choice of lifestyle, and this has a significant impact on which requirements of evidence can reasonably be imposed

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

No Remedy for Homeopathy "Research".David Shaw - 2012 - Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 17 (4):209-10.
Argumentation and evidence.R. E. G. Upshur & Errol Colak - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (4):283-299.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
120 (#149,538)

6 months
5 (#632,816)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references