| · Prescriptions (2)
· Controlled drugs (2)
· Medicines use reviews
· IT support systems
· Safety
· Complementary medicine
Letters to the Editor
|
Complementary medicine
The roots of our profession
From Mr M. Levy, MRPharmS
The article (PDF 80K) on complementary medicine (CM) by Edzard Ernst
(PJ,
12 November, p612) was interesting, and hit on an important number of
points.
I agree with the article in that for any treatment, the efficacy, cost effectiveness
and, in the end, the continued well-being of the patient, are important. Clinical
trials show the reproducibility and viability of these results.
While we are trying to compare the effectiveness of treatments in CM related
to conventional treatment, and placebo, there are problems in taking a look
at the whole treatment process and comparing them. In CM and, to a much lesser
degree, in conventional medicine, the treatment is often based on the individual
practitioner, sometimes with many repeated visits. Since we are comparing the
whole treatment (doctor, treatment, outcome), we should be able, to a degree,
to compare net results. That there may be a large placebo effect should not
be such a problem as long as the required results are achieved.
CM practitioners should also be open to the fact that while some of their treatments
may not work, others may be effective.
At the end of the article are examples of treatments with evidence of efficacy.
The public (and pharmacists) forget about the roots of our profession. Digitalis,
quinine and opium are a few examples.
Morris Levy
Jerusalem, Israel
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal