The article (‘Potential treasure: WHO explores benefits of traditional medicines’, December 20) is gaining a lot of attention. However, it is unfortunate that an organization such as the World Health Organization seems willing to encourage the incorporation of traditional and other medicines into mainstream practice by relying too heavily on emotive language – “heritage”, “tradition”, and sharing of local resources – rather than on clinical evidence. Then he seems to contradict himself by saying that he does not support it if there is no strong and reliable evidence.
The difficulty seems to lie in a misunderstanding of what medicine is. Medicine must be understood as a single enterprise: evidence-based medical practice, with patient safety and efficacy at its core. It should not be divided into categories such as “biological”, “conventional” or “complementary” medicine.
Mainstream medicine does not, as it implies, reject treatments simply because they originate in traditional practice. On the contrary, interventions such as tai chi, yoga, and many plant-derived medicines were readily approved once rigorous clinical trials demonstrated their safety and effectiveness. Much of modern pharmacology has its roots in traditional herbs, and has been refined and validated over time. The Medical Gardens at the Royal College of Physicians in London stand as a reminder of how clearly this is recognized.
What mainstream medicine rejects are unproven claims and practices that pose a risk of harm. Attempting to legitimize such practices under the banner of “conventional” or “complementary” medicine amounts to a backdoor entry into clinical care. To suggest otherwise is misleading at best – and dangerous at worst.
Dr. Radhamamanohar Macherla
Retired Consultant Physician, Barts NHS Trust; Junior Epidemiologist, Global Smallpox Eradication Programme, World Health Organization, 1974