Saturday, January 12, 2008

Archived RW notes recycled: FAQs concerning my criticisms of complementary and alternative medicine

Recently while researching for an off the blog project on complementary and alternative medicine I ran across one of my old posts in which I tried to address, in one long blog entry, recurring questions and objections concerning my many criticisms of CAM. I made a tongue-in-cheek comment at the end that the post would settle all questions once and for all. Well, it didn’t. I get the same recurrent objections. So maybe it’s time to address the FAQs again. The old post, buried deep in the blog archives, does this as well as anything new I might come up with now, so I figure it deserves a reposting here to get it back on the front page for a few days. Here it is.

Frequently asked questions on woo and mainstream medicine

“Woo” is a term for certain implausible and outlandish claims of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The term has recently been popularized on the blogosphere by
Orac and others and has been a subject of several recent posts of mine which have drawn numerous criticisms and questions. Rather than address them piecemeal in my comment threads I decided a more effective way to answer my detractors would be in the form of a frequently asked questions (FAQ) post, so here goes.

Many of mainstream medicine’s conventional treatments are not evidence based. Aren’t they a form of woo?

No. Although some conventional methods fail to measure up to best evidence they are at least based on known anatomy and physiology. They have some plausibility in the observable biophysical model in contrast to the “vital forces”, nebulous “energy fields” and “non-local powers of the mind” which are characteristic of woo.

You seem to focus a lot of your criticism on woo. Isn’t non-evidence based conventional medicine harmful too?
Yes, of course. Moreover, there are harmless forms of woo just as there are harmless conventional breaches of EBM. All departures from best evidence are problematic and need to be addressed, whether woo-based or not.

Then why make a distinction?
Because of important differences in the ways the problems manifest themselves. Mainstream medicine applies a double standard and that’s what I’m trying to expose. People in the mainstream are appropriately critical of conventional deviations from best evidence and are trying to correct the situation. But due to the nature of the problem---a complex interplay of system and cognitive failures---the fix is not easy. In contrast (and here’s where the real hypocrisy comes in) mainstream medicine uncritically embraces woo, applying to it a much easier evidentiary standard and often no standard at all. The remedy for the problem of woo would be much simpler, too. Mainstream medicine could simply say no. Woo, by definition patently implausible, is easy to spot. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s not a system problem. It’s there in mainstream medicine purely by choice. That fact raises another important distinction. If mainstream departure from EBM is a complex system problem and woo is there by choice then woo constitutes a more serious ethical problem.

But if patients want woo shouldn’t we let them seek it out?
By all means. We must respect our patients’ right to choose, and there are plenty of woo facilities outside the mainstream which can accommodate them. It’s quite another thing, though, if we misinform patients by putting our mainstream reputations and credentials behind false promotions. It’s just plain dishonest.

I’ve been reading all these statistics about the increasingly large numbers of patients who are seeking alternative medicine, or “woo” as you call it. They’re even paying for it out of their own pockets. Shouldn’t we in mainstream medicine accommodate them?
Not unless we decide all we’re interested in is taking their money, or in basing best practice on a popularity contest. These don’t strike me as good reasons.

Some woo based methods seem to be little more than relaxation and exercise techniques. What’s wrong with that?
Nothing, as long as you don’t make false claims. Go ahead and recommend relaxation and exercise, but if you promote it, for example, as Qigong you’re promoting all the paranormal theories of “vital energy healing” that go with the package. If you’re a mainstream medical practitioner and put your good name and credentials behind such false claims you’re being unethical.

Now, will this settle the misunderstandings once and for all (as Dr. RW braces for the next salvo)?


DrWes said...

We should not passively ignore the detrimental effects of our "World's Greatest Hospitals" elevating woo to positions of prestige and authority, since in the end, it costs you and me and the entire medical healthcare system dearly.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Is it possible to get even Skeptical Doctors to stop using the term "CAM"?

Medicine is what you do, and what Orac does, and what my family doctor does. It is NOT what the quacks do, and I'm tired of seeing the 'linguistic high ground' being ceded to them.

If you HAVE to use a 'polite term' for them, say they are using ATPs (Alternative Therapy Protocols) or ATMs (Alternative Therapy Modalities or Methods).

We don't use the term "Complementary Geology" for Creationism. Why use the equivalent for quackery?