Title: Science Meets Alternative Medicine: What the Evidence Says about Unconvential Treatments
Author: edited by Wallace Sampson, M.D. and Lewis Vaughn
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1573928038
Pro:
• Specific, popular treatments critiqued
• Common philosophies critiqued
• Reasons for popularity examined
Con:
• None
Description:
• Many alternative treatments examined
• Reasons why treatments appeal to people also exmained
• Science and Ethics discussed
Book Review
Although there is a ton of available books and magazines supportive of just about every type of alternative treatment under the sun, there are only a few which take a more skeptical and critical approach. Of these, even fewer are devoted entirely to the subject of alternative medicines — most are books on skepticism with a couple of chapters on the topic, or magazines with an occasional issue devoted to the subject.
Fortunately, there is one book which deals wholly with this subject: Science Meets Alternative Medicine: What the Evidence Says about Unconventional Treatments, edited by Wallace Sampson, M.D., and Lewis Vaughn.
This is an anthology of research articles by scientists on a wide variety of issues related to alternative medical treatments. Most importantly, it isn’t simply an effort to debunk this or that particular treatment, although there are a couple of such articles.
Instead, the book is devoted to larger issues: what is the philosophy behind alternative medicines? Why do people believe and use them? Are alternative treatments effective and scientific? Is it ethical to recommend treatments which aren’t tested?
What is it that unites so many disparate — and often mutually exclusive — health or medical practices? For the most part, a medical practice will get the “alternative” label if it is based on untested, untraditional or unscientific principles, methods, treatments or knowledge. Usually, “alternative” treatments are founded upon various metaphysical beliefs which are typically incompatible with known science and scientific standards.
The National Institute of Health’s Office of Alternative Medicine currently offers financial and research support for many studies of unorthodox cures, regardless of whether or not the philosophies behind them contradict each other.
Isn’t it odd to see some people specializing in acupuncture, some in homeopathy, others in chiropractics, and still others in in some different form of alternative medicine when the (anecdotal) evidence for all is equal? If the evidence were as good as claimed, wouldn’t it make more sense to find practitioners sometimes offering acupuncture, sometimes offering homeopathic remedies, etc. — always depending upon the patient and, most importantly, the nature of the problem? Actually, yes.
The reason you don’t find that is, as Saul Green points out in his article, because the use of these treatments is not based upon evidence of their effectiveness with particular illnesses. Instead, practitioners hold to a belief system they find compelling and use whatever treatment method that system dictates — regardless of the evidence for the effectiveness of other treatments.
This is one of the principle characteristics which binds together “alternative” medicines and which differentiates them from scientific medical practice. Scientific medicine should be willing to test anything and make use of it based solely on how well it performs in clinical trials. Alternative treatments are not held to such standards by their advocates.
If the standards for alternative medicines are not as high as those for scientific medicines, then why is it that they are so popular? Shouldn’t people prefer treatments which have passed strict testing rather than a treatment which has had no such testing and which has been chosen because of its agreement with a metaphysical belief system?
Unfortunately, no. Although we live in a technologically advanced society which is heavily dependent upon scientific practice and standards, many people are still highly suspicious of science itself. Despite all the good science can do, it is also undeniable that science can bring us problems — this is the old “Axemaker’s Gift” dilemma. Whoever made the first axe made a fantastic tool — and a nasty weapon.
James Alcock explains in his article that we should not dismiss those who seek alternative treatments as simply acting irrationally. On the contrary, studies show that these people have, on the average, more years of formal education than the typical person.
» Next: Rational Reasons for Belief in Alternative Medicine?
