Our Blog

Previously, he was Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Director of Law Programs at the Osher Institute at Harvard Medical School, and Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at Harvard School of Public Health, where he taught the first course on complementary medicine law and policy. He has advised the Institute of Medicine committee on the use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States and is the author of several books, including Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Legal Boundaries and Regulatory Perspectives (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). In the state of Texas, physicians may be partially protected from charges of unprofessional behavior or failure to practice medicine in an acceptable manner, and thus from disciplinary action, if they prescribe alternative medicine in a complementary manner, if the requirements of board-specific practice are met, and if the therapies used do not pose a “risk to patient safety that is unreasonably higher than the conventional treatment for the patient”. State of health of the patient”. [12] This analysis is important here to identify the influence of patient choice on the regulation of health systems. It is understood that there will be consumers whose decision to use a particular FAO modality may not be influenced by the fact that the modality is not regulated. This point is reinforced by the fact that CAM has been interpreted as a manifestation of changes in the institutional authority of medicine initiated by a consumer-oriented healthcare environment [32] and by patients` (new) interest in integrating their values into healthcare and healthcare decision-making. If, as already mentioned, consumer protection is essential in an imperfect healthcare market, this means that states need to develop a more comprehensive validation method for CAM that transcends the limitations of the RCT. This paper outlines the need to examine the evolution of the right to health in relation to the creation of the basis for a human right to traditional, complementary and alternative health care (TCAH). People seek health in different ways, from biomedicine to traditional, complementary and alternative healthcare to alternative healthcare. The authoritative interpretation of the right to health contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) confronts States with seemingly conflicting obligations to protect people from harmful practices and to provide access to culturally appropriate healing. In Denmark, dietary and herbal supplements are the name of a number of products that share their status as medicines under the Danish Medicines Act. [18] There are four types of food and herbal supplements in the Danish Medicines Act: herbal medicines,[19] preparations of strong vitamins and minerals,[20] traditional botanical medicines[21] and homeopathic medicines.

[22] Some food supplements [23] fall into a particular category of products that differ from those mentioned above in that they are not authorised medicinal products. Food supplements are subject to the Food Act and are registered by the Danish Veterinary and Food Authority. Most complementary medicine organizations are run as conventional professional associations; They publish formal codes of ethics and practice, and their members` records are publicly available. Almost all of them have insurance plans that provide professional and commercial liability coverage to their members (the cost of coverage is generally not high, reflecting the absence of litigation in this area). However, the possibility for the public to complain against practitioners and the establishment of formal codes, sanctions and disciplinary procedures, as well as published complaints procedures, were remarkably uneven, even among established organizations. Given efforts to increase professional liability in the medical profession, complementary and alternative medical organizations need to increase public scrutiny of their affairs, whether or not they receive legal regulation. Toke Barfod`s concept of fragility sums up the above discussion [24]. Barfod distinguishes between CAM interventions, which are similar to biomedicine, and those whose belief systems distinguish CAM from conventional medicine.

While the former includes CAM therapies such as herbal medicines that are significantly independent of the patient`s belief system, the latter includes interventions that depend on the belief or belief system of the patient and practitioner. Barfod places CAM interventions along a spectrum, with these two CAM divisions located at each end of the spectrum. These divisions can be classified as the “context/belief independence” and “context/belief dependence” systems [12, 24], the latter being fragile therapies and the former not fragile [12, 24]. The argument is that RCT is an effective way to validate therapies at the non-fragile end of the spectrum. However, if treatment progresses to the fragile end of the spectrum, RCT is not an effective assessment tool [12, 24]. The RCT creates an environment alien to the cultural and philosophical context of faith in which fragile therapies would be most effective [12, 24]. This argument is similar to that of anthropologists and ethnographers who argue that the unique nature of CAM favors a paradigm of conscious evidence of the effect of philosophies, culture, and/or belief systems on treatment effectiveness [10]. Bensoussan A, Myers SP. Towards a safer choice: the practice of traditional Chinese medicine in Australia. Sydney: Faculty of Health, Western Sydney Macarthur University; 1996.

S. 260-315. Public demand for complementary medicine has reached such a level that communication and collaboration with conventional medical services is necessary.10 Many patients consult complementary medicine practitioners at the same time as their doctor. However, they often do not tell their doctor, perhaps because they fear a negative reaction. Evidence that professionals from all health sectors are engaged in a constructive debate about their respective roles would promote better communication between all physicians and their patients. J. Watson, “Nursing-Healing Paradigm as an Example of Alternative Medicine?” Alternative Therapien in Gesundheit und Medizin, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 64-69, 1995. The analysis begins in Section 1 with a brief discussion of the placebo effect.

Section 2 discusses the scientific evidence paradigm with a focus on the role of the RCT in assessing the practice of CAM. An evaluation of the RCT necessarily involves Bayesian theory, a theory of medical epidemiology and philosophy that captures how existing evidence interacts with (and can influence) emerging evidence to produce new results. This theory is being studied to demonstrate its central importance for the legal regulation of health professions. Historical examples are drawn from the early prohibition and regulation of osteopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy, and acupuncture to establish the link between Bayesian theory and the legal regulation of health modalities. Section 3 examines anthropological research methods for the validation of CAM and focuses on the arguments of medical anthropologists who question the objectivity of scientific forms of evidence through differently constructed forms of evidence [10]. The final part of the paper addresses the need for a validation process that recognizes the inherent duality of approaches, methods, and belief models between CAM and biomedicine. In the UK, the absence of a ban means that there are few formal obligations to meet a certain standard, and individual practitioners have been able to chart their own course and even set up their own training programme or professional organisation without sanctions. They don`t have to submit to authority and build their foundation on their ability to satisfy their market – their patients. On the other hand, a favourable legal climate has also allowed for informed responses to growing public demand. The natural instinct for self-improvement of professional status has led most practitioners to subscribe to organizations that openly raise standards.

In 1997 and 2000, the Centre for Complementary Health Studies presented the results of surveys of some 140 professional associations representing some 50,000 practitioners working in up to 30 complementary or alternative therapies.3,4 Professional standards varied widely. To reflect this diversity, the House of Lords report classified complementary and alternative therapies into three groups (castes) and linked many of its recommendations to this classification.