Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I find myself unhappy with the message from Professor Dieppe’s editorial.¹ The conclusion and advice to complementary medicine not to be drawn into the same research model as orthodox medicine seems to me to be flawed as it is defined. Who can argue that we in orthodox medicine, drawn as we are to apply the more effective treatments for disease now available, find that by constraints of time and resource or (more tragically) by decreased inclination, have neglected the dimension of care? Who can argue that our complementary colleagues give time and care in a way valued by patients?

However it is unhelpful to advise that complementary medicine should not join the current research paradigm of orthodox medicine for the following reasons: as long as complementary medicine adopts the language of orthodox medicine in terms of disease labelling and cure, it cannot opt out. If scientific language is used, they are bound to compete using the same research paradigm. It would be wiser to be more honest about the benefits sought, expected and achieved from any therapy. The appropriate endpoints can then be sought. They will most likely not be numerically measurable indicators but softer endpoints more akin to sociological research.

We, in orthodox medicine, recognise that by concentrating on the numerical we are diverted from the less easily defined caring, the art of medicine. Hence rather than what the Professor advocates, complementary medicine should: help by defining endpoints so that we may enrich the valid research paradigm we use with their insights; continue in the orthodox research paradigm; re-examine the language used.

By this we will all be the richer.

Reference

1. Dieppe P. The role of complementary medicine in our society, and the implications that this has for research. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2000; 5: 109–10.