Advertisement

Abstract

This chapter explores the issue of informing patients of choices between conventional medicine and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). “Practitioners” are categorized into three types: orthodox (conventional) medicine practitioners, dual practitioners and CAM practitioners. It is noted that the current law involving CAM and conventional medicine disclosure seems to be conventional-medicine-reinforcing. The chapter concludes with a call for both conventional medicine practitioners and CAM practitioners to provide their patients with unbiased and contextualised information that overcomes the boundaries of their “schools” of medicine. An “integrated” model, where all practitioners provide patients with contextualised information about divergent schools of thought, is better than a “fragmented” model, where every practitioner presents patients with information only about his “school” of thought, leaving patients to search for information about other “schools” of thought themselves.

Keywords

Information Disclosure Complementary Medicine Conventional Medicine Medicine Practitioner Orthodox Medicine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Atwell, Barbara L. 2004. Mainstreaming complementary and alternative medicine in the face of uncertainty. UMKC Law Review 72: 593–630.Google Scholar
  2. Barrette, Joseph A. 2003. The Alternative Medical Practice Act: Does it adequately protect the right of physicians to use complementary and alternative medicine? St. John’s Law Review 77: 75–122.Google Scholar
  3. Boozang, Kathleen M. 1998. Western medicine opens the door to alternative medicine. American Journal of Law & Medicine 24: 185–212.Google Scholar
  4. Brophy, Elizabeth. 2003. Does a doctor have a duty to provide information and advice about complementary and alternative medicine? Journal of Law and Medicine 10: 271–284.Google Scholar
  5. Bulen, James A. 2003. Complementary and alternative medicine: Ethical and legal aspects of informed consent to treatment. The Journal of Legal Medicine 24: 331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caulfield, Timothy, and Colin Feasby. 2001. Potions, promises and paradoxes: Complementary and alternative medicine and malpractice law in Canada. Health Law Journal 9: 183–203.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, Michael H. 1996. Holistic health care: Including alternative and complementary medicine in insurance and regulatory schemes. Arizona Law Review 38: 83–164.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, Michael H. 2001. Informed consent in complementary and alternative medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine 161: 2288–2292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, Michael H., and Mary C. Ruggie. 2003. Integrating complementary and alternative medical therapies in conventional medical settings: Legal quandaries and potential policy models. University of Cincinnati Law Review 72: 671–729.Google Scholar
  10. de Prez, Paula. 2001. Something “old”, something “new”, something “borrowed” … The continued evolution of Bolam. Professional Negligence 17: 75–87.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, Aimee. 2001. Alternative medicine and medical malpractice: Emerging issues. The Journal of Legal Medicine 22: 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ernst, E., M.H. Pittler, B. Wider, and K. Boddy. 2007. Acupuncture: Its evidence-base is changing. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 35: 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fordham, Margaret. 2001. The standard of care applicable to practitioners of alternative medicine. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 2001: 1–11.Google Scholar
  14. Freckelton, I. 2000. Review of the book entitled complementary medicine: Ethics and law. Journal of Law and Medicine 8: 224.Google Scholar
  15. Freckelton, Ian. 2. Regulating the unregistered. Journal of Law and Medicine 16: 413–418.Google Scholar
  16. Haavi Morreim, E. 2003. A dose of our own medicine: Alternative medicine, conventional medicine, and the standards of science. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31: 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haigh, Richard A. 2000. Alternative Medicine and the doctrine of patient disclosure. Journal of Law and Medicine 8: 197–206.Google Scholar
  18. Hufford, David J. 2003. Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: The limits of science and of scientists. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31: 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knoll, Andrew M. 2004. The reawakening of complementary and alternative medicine at the turn of the twenty-first century: Filling the void in conventional biomedicine. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 20: 329–366.Google Scholar
  20. Kune, Randall, and Gabriel Kune. 2007. Mainstream medicine versus complementary and alternative medicine in the witness box: Resolving the clash of ideologies. Journal of Law and Medicine 14: 425–432.Google Scholar
  21. Kurata, Vincent. 2007. “Traditional use” and regulatory change in the arena of natural health products. Health Law Review 15: 14.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, Tat-Leang. 2006. Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and Traditional Chinese Medicine: Time for critical engagement. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 35: 749–752.Google Scholar
  23. Lunstroth, John. 2006. Voluntary self-regulation of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. Albany Law Review 70: 209–286.Google Scholar
  24. Mason, Su, Philip Tovey, and Andrew F. Long. 2002. Evaluating complementary medicine: Methodological challenges of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 325: 832–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. May, B.H., et al. 2009. Herbal medicine for dementia: A systematic review. Phytotherapy Research 23: 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, Judith, Kathy Phipps, Donald Marcer, and George Lewith. 1985. Why do people seek treatment by alternative medicine? British Medical Journal 29: 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison, Peter. 2009. Adjusting the role of chiropractors in the United States: Why narrowing chiropractor scope of practice statutes will protect patients. Health Matrix 19: 493–537.Google Scholar
  28. Nahin, Richard L., and Stephen E. Straus. 2001. Research into complementary and alternative medicine: Problems and potential. British Medical Journal 322: 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Owen, D.K., G. Lewith, and C.R. Stephens. 2001. Can doctors respond to patients’ increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicine? British Medical Journal 322: 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker, Malcolm. 2007. Two into one won’t go: Conceptual, clinical, ethical and legal impedimenta to the convergence of CAM and Orthodox Medicine. Bioethical Inquiry 4: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prillaman, Hunter L. 1990. A physician’s duty to inform of newly developed therapy. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 6: 43–58.Google Scholar
  32. Relman, Arnold S., and Andrew Weil. 1999. Is integrative medicine the medicine of the future? Archives of Internal Medicine 159: 2122–2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, Anna M. 2. Informed patients go Homeo happy: Applying the doctrine of informed consent to homeopathic practitioners. Ohio Northern University Law Review 34: 593–612.Google Scholar
  34. Ritigstein, Eric. 2005. Chapter 742: Paving the way for “Alternative and Complementary Medicine” in California? McGeorge Law Review 36: 933.Google Scholar
  35. Robinson, A., and M.R. McGrail. 2004. Disclosure of CAM use to medical practitioners: A review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 12: 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snyder, Lois (ed.). 2007. Biomedical ethics reviews: Complementary and alternative medicine – Ethics, the patient, and the physician. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  37. Studdert, David M. 1999. Legal issues in the delivery of alternative medicine. JAMWA 54: 173–176.Google Scholar
  38. Sugarman, Jeremy. 2003. Informed consent, shared decision-making, and complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31: 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tran, Anne. 2006. The regulation of Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine 13: 352–369.Google Scholar
  40. Vlasis, Robert T. 2006. The doctor is out, or unconventional methods for healing: Resolving the standard of care for an Alternative Medicine practitioner. Houston Law Review 43: 495–525.Google Scholar
  41. Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L., Ann Vincent, Peter L. Elkin, Laura L. Loehrer, Stephen S. Cha, and Brent A. Bauer. 2006. Physicians’ attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine and their knowledge of specific therapies: A Survey at an academic medical center. eCam 3: 495–501.Google Scholar
  42. Weir, Michael. 2003. Obligation to advise of options for treatment – Medical doctors and complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. Journal of Law and Medicine 10: 296–307.Google Scholar
  43. Xue, Charlie C.L., et al. 2003. Treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis by Chinese Herbal Medicine: A randomized placebo controlled trial. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 9: 80–87.Google Scholar
  44. Xue, Charlie C.L., et al. 2010. Traditional Chinese Medicine: An update on clinical evidence. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 16: 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang, C.S., et al. 2010. Ear-acupressure for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review. Clinical Otolaryngology 35: 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zheng, Zhen, et al. 2. The effect of electroacupuncture on opioid-like medication consumption by chronic pain patients: A pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Pain 12: 671–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiju Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Law College of Social Science and HumanitiesShandong University of Traditional Chinese MedicineJinanP.R. China

Personalised recommendations