Alternative medicine: why it can do more harm than good

Flying from India to attend the Battle of Ideas festival last month, I spoke on the panel of a lively debate entitled “Alternative medicine: the pros and cons”, where I outlined the reasons why I oppose alternative and complementary medicine.

In outlining my opposition, first let us look at the deficiencies of modern medicine. It cannot cure all illnesses. It can often take a long time to make the correct diagnosis. Sometimes it can fail to make any diagnosis at all, for example, chronic pain syndrome. Some of its treatments, especially for cancer, are very unpleasant. Many, if not the majority, of modern practitioners of medicine stress the science
of diagnosis and treatment, perhaps to the detriment of the “art of healing”. These are the gaps that alternative medicine claims to fill.

Unfortunately, these claims have not withstood scientific scrutiny. The scientific foundations for many of the claims such as, for example, that the dilution of a medicine increases potency (in the case of homeopathy), points for acupuncture, the four humors (in Ayurvedic medicine), do not have any basis in anatomy or physiology and are merely hangovers from a time when science had not reached its present state of advancement.

To the argument that ‘alternative medicine works, so why oppose it?’, I say there are many dangers, such as the exploitation of the credulous patient and the failure to treat a potentially curable condition which is life-threatening unless properly treated. There is a long history of societies being exploited by priest-doctors. We should guard against individuals who lay claim to special powers.

There are specific problems in India, although many of these are perhaps common to countries where there are a lot of poor people. Eighty percent of spending on medical treatment in India is private, out-of-pocket spending. Indeed it is the number one cause of rural indebtedness. And due to poor medical services, India has a very high rate of maternal and infant mortality. Against this backdrop of limited availability of medical care and government reluctance to spend public money on healthcare (currently less than 5%of GDP), it suits the government to suggest that “traditional healers” are an alternative source of medical care. Making a virtue out of such “traditional healers” due to the fact that there are not enough trained doctors (in India only only 7 in every 10,000 people are trained doctors) and nurses (7.85 per 10,000) is a cynical exercise of the worst kind.

Defenders of alternative medicine do a terrible disservice to the poor of the country by providing intellectual justification for the government’s failure to provide quality medical care. Denying the privilege of modern medicine to a large section of our citizens by trying to convince them that traditional medicine is as effective when all evidence shows that it is not, is nothing short of criminal injustice.

A section of those who are better off can afford to dabble in alternative medicine, secure in the knowledge that they can run to the nearby modern medical centre whenever they wish. For such “faddists”, alternative medicine is just one option. However, the poor of India have no such options and by forcing them to use the ineffective snake-oil of alternative medicine, the government is squandering tax-payers money and demonstrating that they are too callous to provide quality care.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Dr George Thomas is the Editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. He spoke at the debate Alternative medicine: the pros and cons at the Battle of Ideas festival on Saturday 30 October.

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities