This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Caspi et al¹ very eloquently argue the case for the 2 camps, CAM and orthodox medicine, to learn each other's language so that both schools can be integrated more easily. Most of what they write seems irresistibly obvious and sound. Yet I would like to point out that the seemingly sequential steps of first learning a common language and then integration are not necessarily logical nor in the interest of the patient. Surely, establishing a common language must primarily lead to the understanding required for critical evaluation. Only those aspects that actually pass this stage can be worthy of being considered for an integration that will truly benefit patients in the longer term. I am sure it was not the authors' intention to pave the way for the uncritical integration of all things unorthodox. The danger, however, is that Caspi et al could be misunderstood to advocate a process in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Integrated medicine: good intentions, poor logic?
Ernst
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 2006;126:206-207.
 

Diversity, the Individual, and Proof of Efficacy: Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Medical Education
Park
Am. J. Public Health 2002;92:1568-1572.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT