Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Essay Sample)

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) describes all treatment forms and products used in treatment not formally recognized as conventional therapies. Most of these treatments have historical documentation of successful use from the medieval ages. Currently, some of these forms of treatment with verifiable outcomes are used together with mainstream standard treatments to increase therapeutical effectiveness, like in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy who utilize special diets with medicinal value. However, other factions consider CAM practices unsafe and unregulated, claiming that they lack proper research to ascertain safety. While this could be true, it is entirely a social debate that overlooks the research studies previously conducted to unravel the safety of CAM therapies and products. There is social debate regarding the safety of CAM practices and treatments to the general population and whether there are enough regulations that control their usage. CAM practices are sufficiently safe, and most people, even in the industrialized nations, confirm that they acknowledge the importance and therapeutic effectiveness of both treatments and products regarded as part of complementary and alternative medicine. Even some qualified health practitioners have documented an effective combination of CAM and standard conventional treatment. CAM practices, therapies, and products are relatively safer treatment modalities with beneficial and demonstrated efficacy to patients and require total regulation to optimize their use.
Background Information
CAM has its origins in the medieval ages with documented use of various herbal medications by healers to cure diseases. It is the plant-based herbal extracts that scientists in the early ages used to produced active drugs that are part of conventional treatments (Saks par. 2). Medications like the antimalarial drug quinine have roots from previous herbal remedies of the cinchona tree. However, progressive developments in modern science led to the alienation of CAM over time. Again, reports over the past three decades indicate that most individuals are beginning to trust the efficacy of CAM therapies and regimens due to the increased toxicity associated with conventional pharmaceuticals. Statistical review studies in 2007 in the US indicated that 38% of the population above 18 years old confirmed using various CAM treatment types (Saks par. 4). This report stated the safety margins of CAM since no one would recommend or use a form of therapy proven to cause adverse health outcomes. As such, it confirms that CAM is safe and regulatory affairs need to harmonize their market availability in the required forms for people to access them.
CAM therapies and practices include acupuncture, yoga, Chinese traditional medicine, Japanese reiki, homeopathy, naturopathy, and ayurvedic practices, which all have documented benefits in improving the quality of life. Yoga notably is reported to effectively relieve anxiety disorder from a reliable research study ("Yoga" par. 5). These therapies are becoming more popular than conventional treatment methods, signified by the increasing numbers of clinics and practitioners specializing in alternative medicine. The use of herbal products of medicinal values is also on the rise as questions about their safety linger.
Safety
CAM products and treatment techniques are currently safe and highly efficacious due to the increased training in CAM within higher learning institutions that embrace research. Most countries continue to integrate CAM training to advanced levels to spur continuous medical education and increase standards (Gray et al. 2). Such training has advanced research into the safer use of CAM herbal products and modification of therapies using evidence-based approaches. However, there are some countries where regulation of the use of complementary and alternative medicine has failed, leading to the availability of herbal products of questionable efficacy, toxicity, and treatment methods that end up causing severe secondary infections to already sick individuals. There are lung puncture cases during questionable acupuncture therapies and overdosing of herbal remedies (Saks par. 6). These are potential anger in unregulated environments. Enhancing the safety and therapeutic efficacy of herbal medicines begin with the implementation of WHO Good Manufacturing Practices in industries and training skilled labor to work in botanical gardens for growing herbs of the desired quality. Practitioners training and licensing must be a prerogative of the government within which they operate to bring sanity to CAM modalities.
Also, due to the serious adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy using conventional cytotoxic agents, most cancer patients prefer the use of CAM remedies to reduce the ravaging effects of the disease. A survey of cancer patients in Australia indicated that approximately 65% of the patients actively used herbal treatments (Jones et al. 2). Most of these patients were female and generally considered that CAM was way safer than cytotoxic cancer treatment. On the contrary, due to increased CAM use, many profit-making ventures have proliferated. It creates a notion that some herbal drugs marketed today do not guarantee safety and may not even be from natural sources (Jones et al. 4). Although it remains serious speculation, necessary actions are required to unearth the truth. Production of herbal medicines should receive complete regulations and inspection to assure safety.
Efficacy
CAM treatment using herbal medication prevents relapse of so many infections, plus it is considered the best strategy to reduce the use of antimicrobial agents, and it is an effective solution to the current global pandemic of antimicrobial resistance. A research study by Baars et al. indicates that CAM regimens effectively reduced the consumption of antibiotics through the comprehensive treatment of urinary tract infections, respiratory tract, and skin infections (20). This study confirms the ultimate efficacy of an herbal regimen. Other practitioners, however, remain in denial and prevent processes for integrating such effective treatment regimens into the healthcare system. Some health professionals maintain a negative view of CAM that prevents them from finding appropriate evaluation of CAM treatments and object conceptualization of integrating CAM into the health system (Jones et al. 5). It is an issue of biased opinion and lack of open-mindedness that continue to prevent effective use of CAM. Some arguments even rely on questioning the conditions of growing these herbal plants and the kinds of pesticide control used. This perspective is utterly counterproductive.
More evidence on the efficacy of CAM lies within the various therapies that entail CAM. Some patients have previously reported better outcomes for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain with alternative therapies administered by well-trained practitioners (Corp et al. 2,15). The patients highlighted that the continuous use of these therapies included their confidence in the treatments, the practitioners' credibility, satisfaction for holistic care, and maximal therapeutic goals achieved. These CAM modalities included homeopathic and chiropractic care. Even with such glaring evidence of success, some people still argue on evaluating the effectiveness of CAM (Saks par. 7). Patients reporting wellbeing after using CAM therapies should be enough to draw potential deductions that can later get scientifically tested. Ideally, CAM therapies present a high efficacy level that rivals conventional medicine plus a safety benefit that overrides the latter.
Regulation
Most countries have sufficient regulation of both the training of CAM practitioners and CAM treatments. An example is a complete regulation of CAM practitioners in Ontario, Canada (Ng 12). It has led to the availabili