Volume 182 - Issue 3

The other side of the coin: safety of complementary and alternative medicine

Authors:  Stephen P Myers and Phillip A Cheras

Med J Aust 2005; 182 (3): 142. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06629.x
Published online: 7 February 2005

In reply: We stand by our statement that “the critical issue in assessing any therapy is its risk to benefit”. 1

Ernst appears to miss the point made in the subsequent two sentences — that this assessment is available for conventional medicine, but not yet for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies and products. In the absence of such data, society must be able to make an assessment of health practices and medicines based on their overall risk. Ernst himself has made significant contributions to this literature, and in fact three of his articles2-4 were cited in our review.

The second criterion of the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council Criteria for Assessing the Need for Statutory Regulation of Unregulated Health Occupations asks the question: Do the activities of the occupation pose a significant risk of harm to the health and safety of the public? Answering this question for the currently unregulated CAM professions involves consideration of the “wider public safety issues”. This forms part of the determination about the appropriateness of occupational regulation. The two comments juxtaposed by Ernst to make his point are not mutually exclusive. While awaiting the risk–benefit analysis, society will need to make decisions about the absolute risks.


Authors


References