INTRODUCTION
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as
defined by the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
is a diverse group of medical and healthcare systems, practices and products
that are not generally considered part of mainstream medicine. These forms of
treatments/health interventions are used exclusively or in addition to
mainstream standard medical practice either as therapeutic measures or to
improve health and wellbeing. They include spiritual and faith-based healing,
cupping, acupuncture, chiropractic care, herbal or dietary medicine, Reiki and
healing touch, Ayurvedic medicine, etc.
Despite general acceptance and belief by users to
be effective, CAM, for the greater part, lacks scientific proof for efficacy,
standardised measures (including dosage) and techniques. For these reasons, it
was difficult to integrate CAM into mainstream clinical care. However, this
trend is gradually changing as more healthcare practitioners are open to the
concept albeit with initial resistance.
Research has shown that CAM will be a part of
healthcare for the foreseeable future (Dietlind, et al, 2006). An evidence to
this is seen in one of Ghana’s Ministry of Health’s objectives, stated on their website as to “ensure effective
development and integration of traditional and alternative medicine as a
distinctive medical practice system within the national healthcare system”.
History and evolution of CAM
It is important to note that allopathic medicine
started as a primitive nature-derived therapy through the use of animal and
plant products as well as culture-specific practices in the treatment of
ailments. With the advent of science, these were developed and enhanced into
the evidence based clinical practice as we know it today.
Every society has peculiar health-seeking
behaviours and age old practices which are deeply ingrained in its culture.
Overtime, different cultures learnt and borrowed these practices from each
other through cross-cultural interaction and globalisation. Even with the
advancement of allopathic medicine, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
completely uproot these cultural practices. This is partly due to religious
beliefs and cultural inclinations which are the major driving forces that shape
our thought processes, largely govern our choices and determine our decisions.
However, in order for allopathic medicine to be effective and to avoid drastic
outcomes due to drug-drug interactions or other detriments, it may be necessary
to curb some of these cultural habits. Harmful practices are to be completely
avoided. Moreover, since allopathic care is largely dependent on strict
adherence and compliance of the patient, any other practice alongside it may
thwart a successful medical intervention.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates
about 70% of Ghana’s population to depend solely on traditional medicine while
the rest of the population combined both allopathic and traditional medicine.
In the United States, approximately 38% adults and 12% children use CAM (NCCIH,
2007). The percentage of worldwide population using CAM is about 50% annually
with the vast majority using it in combination with allopathic medicine
(Hoenders, 2014).
Paradigms in CAM
CAM tends to be holistic in nature. It takes into
consideration the individual’s mind, body and soul, often requiring the active
participation of the patient with lifestyle changes including diet and exercise,
spiritual and psychological exercises among others. These regimes are tailored
to suit the patient’s needs and may differ in both content and method from one
individual to another and even in the same individual overtime.
Naturally, CAM includes therapies from diverse
historical and cultural backgrounds. It features therapies that are diverse in
nature and origin and also thought to work in an equally diverse manner of
ways. Methods include reviving the body’s natural ability to heal itself
(homeopathy); improving the person’s “sense of coherence” to better cope with,
and appreciate life’s experiences as meaningful (salutogenesis); healing
through spiritual or other non-physical means, etc.
Alternative medicine is also particularly based
on subjective experience, intuition and belief. It makes use of natural sources
and the concept of “inner science” which is often criticised by mainstream
allopathic medical practitioners as irrational or irreconcilable with rational
science (Hoenders, 2014). It is also relatively cheap and readily accessible to
users.
In contrast, allopathic medicine tends to be
reductionist and pathogenic in perspective, uses manufactured drugs and
technological devices and “outer science” or evidence based techniques. The
physician is usually considered the expert who is responsible for the
treatment, giving the therapeutic involvement and contribution of the patient a minor role. It is also relatively
costly and not always readily accessible to those who need it.
Conclusion
As previously stated, mainstream allopathic
medicine evolved from the so-called “alternative medicine”. People are
increasingly reverting to CAM for their health needs for reasons related to
their concerns on side-effects of conventional drugs, accessibility and
affordability of medical care, dissatisfaction with conventional medicine and
to better accommodate their cultural and religious beliefs. There is therefore
a need to, on one hand, address the main issues of concern regarding CAM (e.g
dosing, hygiene and drug-drug interactions) and to devise and implement
regulatory measures with the aim of integrating CAM into mainstream medical
practice. On the other hand, there is a need to take a critical look at the
elements lacking in allopathic medicine which make alternative care more
appealing. These include warmth, empathy, cultural integration, religious
consideration and the use of safe natural products where the ‘therapeutic
poisons’ (pharmaceutical drugs) could be avoided. Many will agree to the fact
that the mere inclusion of these factors into the equation makes allopathic
care more holistic and therefore more satisfactory. Doing this will provide
patients with the best of both worlds as well as ensure a more promising future
for both practices.
 |
| Author: Hafsah Hassan |
REFERENCES
Dietlind L., Wahner R., Vincent, A.,Bauer B.,
(2006). Evidence Based Complementary and alternative Medicine. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1697740/
Ghana Ministry of Health (2005). Policy
Guidelines on Traditional Medicine Development. Retrieved from http://www.moh.gov.gh/policy-documents/
Hoender, R. H. J.
(2014).Western and Alternative Medicine: A comparison of paradigms
and methods.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23457244_Western_and_Alternative_Medicine_A_Comparison_of_Paradigms_and_Methods
National Centre for Complementary and Integrative
Health (NCCIH), (2007). The use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in
the United States. Retrieved from https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/2007/camsurvey_fs1.htm
Work the World. (n.d). Ghana’s Fight to preserve
traditional medicine. Retrieved from https://www.worktheworld.com/blog/ghanas-fight-preserve-traditional-medicine
World Health Organisation (WHO), (2001). Legal
status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/ Alternative Medicine: A
worldwide Review. Retrieved from https://www.who.int
Comments
Post a Comment