Debating the Merits and Dangers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 70-80% of the world's population rely on non-conventional medicines. This fact, coupled with the reducing confidence of the public in conventional medicine (also called Western or allopathic medicine), has led to a worldwide growing interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). Through multimedia platforms and social media, people are becoming more informed about health and wellness related matters. The increased health consciousness of certain segments of society, coupled with patient concerns over the side effects of conventional drugs, the lack of curative treatments for chronic diseases, microbial resistance, and the emergence of new disease, are collectively contributing to the increasing public interest in CAM. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) have defined CAM as "a group of diverse medical and health care interventions, practices, products, or disciplines that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine"(1). The number of listed CAM therapies currently stands at around 400. The NCCIH have classified the different CAM modalities into five major categories: (A) Alternative Medical Systems (Acupuncture, Ayurveda, Homeopathy, TCM), (B) Mind-Body Interventions (Meditation, Biofeedback, Hypnosis, Yoga), (C) Biologically-Based Treatments (Orthomolecular Medicine), (D) Manipulative Therapies (Chiropractic, Osteopathy), and (E) Energy Therapies (Electromagnetic, Reiki). Because of the incredibly diverse nature of CAM and the fact that the global CAM market is growing so rapidly and is expected to reach a value of US$197 billion by 2025, there is a huge onus on medical schools throughout the world to educate our future doctors of allopathic medicine on the merits and dangers of unorthodox medicine(2). In this regard, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) - Bahrain has very recently taken a first step in a long journey towards educating their students about CAM by having a Higher Education Council (HEC) approved in-house debate involving two teams consisting of a mix of senior cycle students along with several RCSI academics with expertise in clinical medicine and pharmacology. The resolution before the proposing and opposing teams was "Would you recommend CAM for your patient?".