Patients "misled" by contrasting views on complementary medicine

Wednesday 23rd April 2008

Patients are being continuously and seriously misled by both sides of the debate on complementary medicine, according to a leading clinical expert.

One of the most important questions about complementary medicine — does it generate more harm than good? — remains unanswered because two alternative and antagonistic attitudes are influencing the evidence, says Professor Edzard Ernst in the journal BMJ Clinical Evidence.

According to Professor Ernst, the sceptics often ignore the evidence for complementary medicine.

He says that, despite thousands of clinical trials and hundreds of systematic reviews, mainstream journals rarely publish positive findings, giving the impression that little serious research is being done in this field, or that the findings show complementary medicine to be useless or even dangerous.

In contrast, he argues, the proponents claim that "scientific evidence cannot be applied to complementary medicine" when data fail to show what they had hoped for.

But the real loser in these ongoing disputes is the patient, warns Professor Ernst.

He points out that complementary medicine has become important not because of the eagerness of doctors, the interests of scientists or the attention of politicians, but because of the "almost insatiable hunger of patients."

In Britain, £1.6bn is spent each year on complementary medicine —therapies rarely available on the NHS — yet there is little evidence available to patients about what really works.

To remedy the situation, reliable information intended specifically for lay people must be produced as a matter of urgency, Professor Ernst concludes.

BMJ Clinical Evidence

Click here to take part in our Opening Hours Survey

Your comments: (Terms and conditions apply)

"The comments by Professor Ernst were welcome ones to the eyes of this complementary medicine practitioner. The 'turf war' raging in this area for years has little to do with patient health but rather money and ego. There will not be any savings with the elimination of NHS funding for complementary therapies, quite the contrary. That money will just be withheld or added to another budget enhancing the three-minute office visit, techno-medicine that drives so many patients to complementary therapies. It's time to put down the poison pens and start thinking about what is best for the patient. Eliminating homeopathy and other therapies does not address the 'first, do no harm' issue. If funding for homeopathy were eliminated, the pain and suffering of the thousands of homeopathic patients would be eliminated? The answer is no, of course. Would the death rate go down? No. So the issue must be personal financial gain and/or ego. It is time to call a truce in this war and think about the patient" – Robert E Steele, Romania

"Yes. 'First do no harm.' This does certainly not apply to allopathic medicine. Homoeopathy has been part of the NHS since the NHS was 'born'. Surely the medical community and parliament had good reasons to include it? Other European countries have a long history of practising and researching herbal medicine, diet, homoeopathy and other branches of complementary medicine, as Professor Ernst would know. It just seems to be a particular British anomaly, that studies and research documented in a non-English language are not even considered by UK 'scientists', even though knowing classics is part of traditional science" – Name and address withheld

"Definitely. Yes, it has been very useful to my patients – both NHS and private. I work as a GP in Hertfordshire and I use homeopathy and acupuncture – many of my patients over the last 10 years have been immensely grateful to this approach" – Michael Cannell, St Albans