Volume 186 - Issue 4
The "therapeutic footprint" of medical, complementary and alternative therapies and a doctor's duty of care
Authors: Christine R Sanderson, Bogda Koczwara and David C Currow
Med J Aust 2007; 186 (4): 214-215. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb00869.x
Published online: 19 February 2007
Published online: 19 February 2007
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.
References
- Mileshkin L, Rischin D, Prince HM, Zalcberg J. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to the management of cancer [Comment on: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2004; 16: 549-560.] Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005; 17: 294. GGDCBFDB