Abstract
The paper aims to dispute common arguments put forward by practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in discussions against conducting clinical trials in CAM treatment protocols. It is argued that CAM therapies cannot be evaluated by the same criteria as those applied in conventional medicine due to specificity of CAM. This paper suggests that this line of thought undermines not only the validity of CAM therapies, but, importantly, is delaying understanding their therapeutical value. We also argue that despite apparent differences in approach both conventional medicine and CAM aim to improve human well being therefore CAM should be validated with well established and widely accepted process of balancing of risks and benefits of individual therapies as in conventional medicine clinical trials.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
