Posted 30 June 2021
A 17-member Canadian team has come to a consensus regarding: (a) how “alternative health care” should be defined, (b) ways it can harm patients directly or indirectly, and (c) its four major risk categories.
The team consisted of three physicians, four nurses, three pharmacists, two physiotherapists, one social worker, two lawyers (with expertise in harm, injury and case law), an epidemiologist, a naturopath and a chiropractor, each with at least 10 years of experience and an identified interest in “alternative health care.”
Their definition is:
The range of therapeutics that largely originate from traditions and theories distinct from contemporary biomedical science, and which claim mechanisms of action outside of those currently accepted by scientific and biomedical consensus.
The team distinguished direct harm from indirect harm:
- Direct harm can result from: (a) prescribed (including self-prescribed) substances, (b) procedures, (c) reducing the effectiveness of, or causing detrimental effects