To the Editor: Sanderson et al provide an interesting viewpoint about how the community, including medical practitioners, have embraced complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).1

However, if we were reviewing this article for publication, we would ask the authors to:

• make a valid distinction between those complementary and alternative therapies promoted as curative versus those considered palliative;

• define how they decided which therapies belong to one or other side of the arbitrary CAM boundary;

• review and justify the boundaries for the “therapeutic footprint” in a more evidence-based and rigorous way;

• locate specific therapies inside the footprint;

• locate where chemotherapy lies within the footprint, in light of the recent review showing, for the vast majority of adult malignancies, its marginal survival benefits considering its high costs, both monetary and healthwise;2

• emphasise that there are relatively few recorded adverse events for CAM compared with conventional cancer care (Therapeutic Goods Administration Medicine Summary reports 2003, 2004, 2005 — Dr K Mackay, Acting Director, Adverse Drug Reactions Unit, TGA, personal communication); and

• vigorously question the marketing of conventional medicines, such as trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche), to vulnerable patients and an uncritical public when the evidence suggests huge expense and little, if any, survival benefit.3

Perhaps a distinction also needs to be made between CAM therapies, many of which provide proven symptomatic relief, and those lifestyle interventions, such as exercise,4 dietary change,5 and social support, which provide symptomatic relief and may also confer a survival benefit. It does not serve the profession well when many cancer patients and their carers have to go outside the medical system to access information, advice and therapies which they should have easy access to within the system. In fact, we might even question how helpful these arbitrary boundaries are when all that patients and doctors want is to use what works and what is safe.

In reply: We would like to thank Hassed and colleagues for their comments on the “therapeutic footprint” and their questions about locating specific therapies within the model. While it was outside the scope of our article to critically analyse different treatments using the model (as benefits and risks will vary from patient to patient), we would like to direct Hassed et al to a more detailed consideration of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy.1

We do not see our model as a tool to categorise or economically appraise specific treatments, but rather as one to help conceptualise the key issues to be considered when proposing treatment — the evidence for benefits and risks, contextualised according to treatment goals. The model provides a basis for comparison, taking us beyond arbitrary and unhelpful arguments about the distinctions between complementary and alternative therapies and their boundaries. We hope that the model will encourage evaluation of evidence for all therapies and support critical evaluation not only of drugs, but also lifestyle interventions that may benefit patients. The primary or essential purpose of the model is to encourage the posing of questions like those articulated by Hassed and colleagues to any therapist — whether they identify as medical, complementary or alternative.