In the world of modern medicine, we encounter standardized testing and treatments, routine physical exams, and step-by-step healing and rehabilitation procedures in order to solve any health problems we may face. We call these methods “Conventional Medicine”, or allopathic, and use them as a first resort when diagnosing and treating an illness. Alternatively, there are other forms of medicine that deviate from the ‘conventional’ path and take holistic and traditional approaches to healing the body. This realm of medicine is known as “Alternative” or “Complementary”. Due to the differences in scientific validity, safety and regulation, and treatment modalities, patients, doctors, and supporters of either side have clashed over which route is considered best for treatment and should be promoted in the world of healthcare.
To understand the depth of this controversy, we must first expose ourselves to some of the alternative and conventional treatments in question. Modern conventional medicine includes chemotherapy, radiation, and even prescription and over-the-counter drugs. These forms of medicine had not been put into effect until they were certified to be effective in treating their respective maladies through extensive experimentation and research. On the other hand, alternative medicine incorporates various practices such as herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic adjustments, homeopathy, naturopathy, and dieting (Public Domain, 2022). Many of these practices go as far back as ancient China, India, and Native American traditions, as seen in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurvedic Medicine, and Native American Traditional Healing. (The domain in which this information was found is an online public library, verified by a board of editors and intended to inform their audience consisting of historical researchers, scientists, and students). These approaches may not align with the accepted standards and methodologies of allopathic medicine, which relies heavily on pharmaceuticals, surgery, and medical interventions. In fact, many doctors are against their patients undertaking a complementary homeopathic regimen while undergoing treatment in their facilities. Some believe that it may interfere with or hinder the effects of the allopathic medicine they are receiving, which I will delve deeper into later. I have seen firsthand oncologists refusing to allow their patients to consume certain drugs or engage in certain holistic practices so long as they were to be treated by their conventional methods.
A significant factor in the unwillingness of conventional doctors to accept alternative medical practices is the lack of concrete evidence to back up “cure-all” claims. It is said that many forms of alternative medicine are rejected by conventional medicine because the efficacy of the treatments has not been demonstrated through double-blind randomized controlled trials, whereas conventional drugs reach the market only after such trials have proven their efficacy (Tabish, 2008). On a similar note, some say that once alternative medical methods become scientifically proven, they are no longer considered “alternative” and are solely categorized and “medicine/science”. Herbal medicine, acupuncture, and light therapy are a few examples of said “alternative” methods (Tabish, 2008). This author is an experienced researcher and professor who is well-versed on many medicinal subjects, who seems to be trying to inform his audience of fellow researchers of the controversy between these types of medicine, as opposed to persuading one side or the other. To rebut the claims of the invalidity of alternative approaches, publishers say that the conventional “accreditation” pathway is being applied to more alternative and developmental therapies to appease the desire for evidence-based treatments (Harlan, 2004)
A final concern that many have when considering conventional and alternative medicine (CAM) is the safety and regulation of these methods. It is known that conventional medicines have been through various steps before being available to the public and mainstream healthcare, but alternative medicine does not follow that same approach. CAM use by cancer patients is generally a safety concern because of the risk of interactions with certain anti-cancer therapies and drugs, yet the prevalence of CAM use in cancer patients was found to be 51% (Keene, 2019). In milder cases of illness, complementary and alternative methods are not as regulated nor are they sought out as in more extreme cases of illness, such as stage IV cancers. At the “point of no-return”, when all conventional therapy has been exhausted, and sometimes even before, many cancer patients turn to homeopathic remedies, against the advisement of their oncologists. The overwhelming majority of doctors today, especially in the US, believe that a lot of holistic medicine is “quackery” (Tabish, 2008) and there is no way to be sure of its benefits and adverse effects. What they do not take into account are the people that alternative medicine has supposedly helped. Just because these success stories were not published in scientific journals and popularized does not mean that these methods are not effective. This is an issue that we face in the publication of different forms of healing, and can be fixed by allowing more room for alternative medicine to grow and funding the study of alternative practices for them to become widely accepted if proven effective and safe.
The conventional way of medicine is a way of standardizing approaches to how we heal those who are ill. Alternative and holistic approaches have been around for a very long time and, in efforts to put the patients’ needs first, it is best that scientists, researchers, doctors, and policy makers start trying to make the best of both genres. These two forms of medicine do not have to oppose each other and might work better when used hand-in-hand. In order to achieve this, though, it calls for a reset of people’s biases towards alternative medicines. Healthcare providers and patients must become more open-minded to alternative routes, especially when conventional methods may not suffice in treating harsh illnesses. Another way to bridge this gap between holistic and allopathic medicine would be to allocate more funding to research and trials dedicated to finding the evidence for the efficacy of various alternative medicinal practices, which can potentially expand the palette of treatment options available to patients of various natures. Ultimately, it is the patient’s needs that come first, and it is our job to ensure that it is where our priorities lie.
Works Cited:
Tabish S. A. (2008). Complementary and alternative healthcare: Is it evidence-based? International Journal of Health Sciences, 2(1), V–IX.
Harlan, W. R. (2004, July 5). New opportunities and proven approaches in complementary and alternative medicine research at the National Institutes of Health. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 7(1), 53-59. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/107555301753393814
Public Domain. (2022, October 21). Libguides: Complementary and alternative medicine: History. LibGuides at Duquesne University. https://guides.library.duq.edu/complementary_medicine/history
Martin R. Keene, Ian M. Heslop, Sabe S. Sabesan, Beverley D. Glass. (May 2019). Complementary and alternative medicine use in cancer: A systematic review. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 35(1), 33-47. doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.01.004.
