Diagnosis: Tell Me What Works
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The June 9 Health article "Mainstream Physicians Give Alternatives a Try" was disappointingly uncritical about the practice of "integrative medicine."
The article described an array of treatments that various doctors use instead of or in addition to evidence-based medicine, but it told the reader little about them. Do these treatments make people better? How safe are they? If they are not, as one person quoted, evidence-based, why is it appropriate for a doctor to use them?
Sure, some of the treatments described are reasonable adjuncts to "conventional" medical care. Consulting with a nutritionist and personal trainer is hardly "alternative." Yoga or massage for stress relief? Not much of a reach.
But for other "treatments" mentioned there is no evidence of their efficacy or (for homeopathy, for instance) any plausible mechanism by which they could work. Perhaps your health reporters could ask some hard questions instead of just relating tales that provide little real information.
One physician quoted in the article asked why we would still be using treatments after thousands of years if they didn't work. My answer? Lack of critical thinking skills and reliance on anecdote rather than evidence-based inquiry.
ELIZABETH KINGSLEY
Washington
