Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T17:51:25.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Complementary and alternative medicine: challenges for research ethics committees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Sue Eckstein
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Within the last 30 years, there has been a huge growth in usage of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) both in the UK and world wide (Eisenberg et al., 1998). A report to the Department of Health estimated that up to 5 million patients in the UK may have consulted a CAM practitioner in the preceding year (Mills and Budd, 2000) and a recent Report by the House of Lords Select Committee on science and technology recognised that use of CAM in the UK is wide spread and growing (House of Lords, 2000).

Whereas in the past, orthodox medicine was hostile to wards CAM approaches, doctors are increasingly interested in the potential benefits CAM may offer their patients, particular those patients suffering from chronic, un differentiated diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer. A 1995 study estimated that 39.5% of GP practices in England were providing access to CAM the rapists for their NHS patients (Thomas et al., 1995). A recent survey of UK GPs carried out by the BMA (BMA, 2000) found that 79% of those responding felt that acupuncture should be made available to patients on the NHS. The most popular therapies currently are the so-called ‘big five’, namely: acupuncture, homoeopathy, herbalism, osteopathy and chiropractic (the last two of which are subject to statutory regulation). Other popular therapies include aromatherapy, reflexology and healing. Most consultations with CAM practitioners occur in the private sector, with patients paying for sessions out of their own pockets. Most CAM practitioners are not medically qualified, although growing numbers of doctors, nurses, midwives and physiotherapists also utilise CAM techniques.

Type
Chapter
Information
Manual for Research Ethics Committees
Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, King's College London
, pp. 49 - 52
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×