A Comparative Analysis: Bio-Medicine and Complementary Therapies

This report provides a detailed comparison between bio-medicine and complementary alternative therapies. It begins by defining both approaches, highlighting the use of evidence-based practices in bio-medicine and discussing the various forms of complementary medicine, such as massage, acupuncture, and herbal remedies. The report explores the pros and cons of complementary medicines, addressing their focus on whole-person treatment and personalized attention while also acknowledging limitations in scientific research and potential dangers. It contrasts bio-medicine, which relies on scientific validation and evidence-based medicine, with complementary approaches that may lack the same level of rigorous testing. The report also examines the effectiveness of complementary medicines, emphasizing the need for further research and regulation to ensure patient safety and improve the integration of both approaches in healthcare. The report concludes by suggesting the importance of evidence-based practices for both biomedicine and complementary medicines to enhance health outcomes and the quality of care provided to patients.

BIO-MEDICINE
(COMPLEMENTARY
ALTERNATIVE THERAPY)

TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Complementary and alternative medicines..................................................................................1
Pros and cons of the complementary and alternative medicines.................................................1
Biomedicine and complementary medicines ..............................................................................2
Biomedicine: An approach of evidence based medicines ...........................................................3
Effectiveness of complementary medicines and their suitability with evidence based practice 4
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The Theoretical form of medicine is known as Bio-medicine. In this form the study of
human body is done in theoretical positions. Modern drugs, detail comprehension of nature of
diseases as well as the advance understanding about the human boy are the results of the research
in the bio-medicine. Whereas Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) covers practices
like massage, tai chi, acupuncture and many more. CAM is those type of medical practices and
production which are not a part of the standard medical. This file is about Bio-medicine and
complementary and alternative medicine. This file will highlight about the Bio-medicine and
complementary and alternative medicines in detail. Along with this their difference with support
of articles, present examples and research.
Complementary and alternative medicines
It is the type of medical treatment which is used instead of the standard treatment or are used
with the standard treatments in addition. The medicines and therapy which are used instead of
the western medical treatment is are alternative medicines however standard are those which are
used with the standard medical treatments(Micozzi, 2018). Standard treatment has a long,
detailed and careful process of research, which helps to prove the treatment is safe as well as
effective but in case of complementary and alternative medicine the research process is not as
long and effective. CAM include diet plans, dietary supplements, herbal preparations, massages,
spiritual healing and many more. These are the traditional form of medical science.
Pros and cons of the complementary and alternative medicines
PROS
Whole-person treatments: The complementary and alternative medicines focus on treating the
whole boy. In this the disease is treated as different entity from the person who is affected by it.
This form of medicine just doesn't have the sole focus on the body it also focuses on improving
the mental, emotional as well as spiritual health of the patient.
Personal attention: The complementary and alternative medicines gives important to the whole
body of the patients, The practitioners of these form of medicine offer the patient a great deal of
personal attention. The fees structure and the philosophies of these practitioners are different
moreover they focus more on one by one attention(Boston and et.al., 2019)
Focus on prevention: The focus on of complementary and alternative medicine is on prevention.
The treatment of these medicines focus on the prevention of disease before it occurs to patients
1

CONS
Limited scientific research: The complementary and alternative medicines has very few scientific
research as compare to the western traditional medicines. Many methods and medicines in these
form is still not scientific proven.
Confusing marketing: These medicines are often market as natural and safe medicines but there
are many medicines in this which are not naturals like many dietary supplements. Many
manufactures of these make false claim that their products are natural.
Potentially dangerous interactions: Even if the supplements and herbs are natural and contains no
artificial substance in it. The natural products can still have their own side effects (Farooqui and
et.al., 2016)
Biomedicine and complementary medicines
Biomedicine is defined as the extension of medical science in which physiological and
biological concepts are applied to clinical practice. These medicines are based upon the concepts
of biology, biochemistry and natural science. On the other hand complementary medicines and
therapies are known as the treatment, diagnostic and prevention strategies substantiated by
scientific argumentation. These medicines are based upon scientific theories acceptable in
biomedicine but due to certain reasons are not considered as the part of biomedicine
(MacPherson and et.al., 2016). For instance massage therapy, food and herbs supplement are
widely adopted form of complementary medications.
Similarly, approaches such as homeopathy or healing are considered as complementary
and different from biomedicine because there is very limited validation or resolution to
associated scientific controversies. Biomedicine has scientific validation and thus their impact
can be easily regulated, controlled and monitored. However, in many cases either people choose
complementary or alternative medications so that quick and effective health outcomes can be
obtained. Many communities or people have spiritual or traditional belief that complementary
medicines can deliver better health outcomes. Biomedicine are considered as the part of the
standard medical care which is practised by registered health professionals.
Contrary to this complementary medicines are not considered as the standard treatment
choice, but they are used in integration with the biomedicine. For example the treatment of
chronic diseases such as cancer is preferred by biomedicine only (Brosnan, 2015). However, to
comfort the patient complementary approaches such as acupuncture are used by the patients.
2

Contrary to this certain diseases such as diabetes are also well managed by people using
alternative medications. Instead of taking regular biomedicine people used to follow special diet
so that root cause of disease can be eliminated and there is minimum requirement of
biomedicine.
Currently the effectiveness of complementary approaches is also appreciated by health
care professionals and thus federal government and agencies for complementary and integrative
health are supporting and sponsoring clinical trials for such therapies. These clinical trials not
only analyse the impact of complementary therapies but also aims at evaluating their integration
as well as alternative use with conventional biomedicine treatments. The interference of
complementary therapy with the biomedicine can be life threatening for the patients and thus
individuals must inform their health practitioners if they follow any such treatment intervention
(Baars and Hamre, 2017).
Biomedicine: An approach of evidence based medicines
In order to assure the safety of patient it is recommended that for health interventions
maximum and highest level of scientific evidences must be taken into account. These scientific
evidences can be based upon treatment option, values, patient preferences and the experience of
therapist. One of the most obvious and dominating reason that complementary medicines are not
able to integrate with the main stream biomedicine is that they lack the scientific evidences. For
the safe and quality health care services it is necessary that complementary and alternative
medicines must be safe and their usage must be justified with the suitable evidences.
Evidence based medicine (EBM) provides supporting evidences on the basis of
credibility of medicines. The biomedicine is strictly based upon principles of EBM and ensure
that best decision of the medicine depends upon scientific evidences and care needs of individual
patient (Zank and Hanazaki, 2017). While making selection of biomedicine health professionals
ensure that their decision is judicious, and explicit and is taken with complete conscientious. For
the patient safety it is necessary that all kind of treatment approaches have necessary evidence to
support. As compare to complementary therapy, biomedicine tend to more integrated with the
evidence based practices.
The government and regulatory agencies also plays significant role in evidence based
practice. The availability and suitability of the biomedicine is strictly controlled by the
regulations (Baer, 2015). Dosage, availability and the mode of delivery is continuously
3

monitored and tracked by health professionals. However, there is no such framework to promote
the evidence based practice of complementary therapies. As compare to the bio-medicine there is
also limited research in the complementary medicines. However, gradually health professionals
and researchers are accepting this aspect as essential and beneficial for the health quality and
outcomes.
One of the key reason for the wide popularity and success of biomedicine is that it is
followed by evidence based practices. However complementary therapies incorporates evidences
to a very limited extent which makes them more vulnerable to risk factor and limited
acceptability among health care service providers. EBM not only emphasis on the dosage of
medicine but also on the care needs of patient and how particular treatment contributes in the
quick health recovery. Biomedicine is effective but it cannot be denied that complementary
medicines are also crucial in brining significant improvement to the condition of patient
(Anderson and et.al., 2019). Thus, suitable research and regulations must be promoted so that
complementary medicines can also be integrated in the care process on the basis of evidences. It
will help health care professionals to enhance the effectiveness of biomedicine and service
quality provided to the patients.
Effectiveness of complementary medicines and their suitability with evidence based practice
There are several complementary therapies and medicines which have been evaluated in
depth and are verified as effective and safe health care practices. Contrary to this there are also
some practices which are considered to be possibly harmful due to lack of supporting evidences.
There are several reasons such as time and fund issues, regulatory issues and lack of efficient
research institutions working in the direction. At present there is very limited evidences for
various types of complementary medicines. Thus, there is need of in depth evaluation and careful
research so that standard treatment can be evaluated. The encouragement to such research is vital
for the evidence based complementary therapies and treatment procedures.
Complementary therapies also contain nutritional products, herbs and dietary
supplements as well as botanicals. Since these products are produced by nature it is assumed that
these are safe and healthy for use without even any strong evidence. Contrary to this biomedicine
are developed by the application of biological principles to the physiology (Thirthalli and et.al.,
2016). Thus, there are firm evidences regarding impact and adverse reactions of biomedicine. It
is one of the most significant reason that complementary medicines are not widely and uniformly
4

accepted and encouraged in practice as biomedicine (Zörgő, Purebl and Zana, 2018) . The
safety concerns of the patient becomes more evident and clinical in alternative medicines as
compare to complementary. For instance when individuals prefer alternative medications it is
easy for the service provider, health practitioners or the therapist to measure the progression and
improvement.
Contrary to this complementary medications may have enhanced risk factor for health.
The individuals who are on bio medication may encounter allergic reactions or adverse health
impacts due to integration of bio-medicine and complementary medicines. For instance St. John's
wort is one of the popular complementary herb used by people to overcome and manage the
depression (Lock and Nguyen, 2018). However, the intake of this herb has negative impact on
the efficiency of anticancer drugs. Thus, it is recommended that complementary medicines must
be consumed with suitable guidance and precautions. Similarly, despite having natural properties
of substance complementary drugs can be harmful if consumed in inappropriate dosage.
Another popular concern associated with the complementary medicines is that there is no
regular monitoring of these drugs. For instance the health care professionals recommend a
particular biomedicine after detailed assessment of the patient. Along with the need of patient,
the composition and possible reaction of the drug is also considered. However, with
complementary treatment people often take suggestions from the non-authorised people and thus
there is increased vulnerabilities of encountering adverse drug reaction. Many people are aware
of only one side of the complementary therapies, and they are not aware with the possible side
effects or the ongoing researches.
Unlike biomedicine there is no prescribed guidelines or the regulation authority to control
the usage and consumption of the complementary medicines and therapies (Derkatch, 2016). It
leads to various misconceptions and health negligence among people due to lack of awareness
and ineffective monitoring of the treatment procedure. Hence, it can be suggested that
complementary medicines and practices can be very useful in improving the health of people but
necessary improvements must be made in regulatory and monitoring frameworks for such
medications (Gureje and et.al., 2015). The use and incorporation of necessary evidences is vital
for encouraging the integration of biomedicine and complementary medicines.
5

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the above discussion that both biomedicine and complementary
medicines have advantages and role in enhancing health outcomes. However, there is need to
adopt more evidence based approach to deliver more qualitative outcomes using positive aspects
of both types of care services. It has been evaluated that the best health care treatment can be
provided by using integration medication approach which utilizes both biomedicine and
complementary therapies. In order to ensure the safety of patients and quick recovery from the
diseases individuals and health professionals must choose the best intervention which must be
based upon relevant evidences.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Anderson, B.J., and et.al., 2019. Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and
Integrative Health: Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United
States. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 25(3). pp.288-295.
Baars, E.W. and Hamre, H.J., 2017. Whole medical systems versus the system of conventional
biomedicine: a critical, narrative review of similarities, differences, and factors that
promote the integration process. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, 2017.
Baer, H., 2015. Complementary medicine in Australia and New Zealand: Its popularisation,
legitimation and dilemmas. Routledge.
Boston, C and et.al., 2019. Comparison and Effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative
Medicine as against Conventional Medicine in the Treatment and Management of Type 2
Diabetes. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medical Research, pp.1-8.
Brosnan, C., 2015. ‘Quackery’in the academy? professional knowledge, autonomy and the debate
over complementary medicine degrees. Sociology. 49(6). pp.1047-1064.
Derkatch, C., 2016. Bounding biomedicine: Evidence and rhetoric in the new science of
alternative medicine. University of Chicago Press.
Farooqui, M and et.al., 2016. Use of complementary and alternative medicines among Malaysian
cancer patients: A descriptive study. Journal of traditional and complementary medicine,
6(4), pp.321-326.
Gureje, O. and et.al., 2015. The role of global traditional and complementary systems of
medicine in the treatment of mental health disorders. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2(2). pp.168-
177.
Lock, M. and Nguyen, V.K., 2018. An anthropology of biomedicine. John Wiley & Sons.
MacPherson, H. and et.al., 2016. Unanticipated insights into biomedicine from the study of
acupuncture. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 22(2). pp.101-107.
Micozzi, M.S., 2018. Fundamentals of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine-E-
Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Thirthalli, J., and et.al., 2016. Traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine approaches
to mental health care and psychological wellbeing in India and China. The Lancet
Psychiatry. 3(7). pp.660-672.
Zank, S. and Hanazaki, N., 2017. The coexistence of traditional medicine and biomedicine: A
study with local health experts in two Brazilian regions. PloS one. 12(4). p.e0174731.
Zörgő, S., Purebl, G. and Zana, Á., 2018. A qualitative study of culturally embedded factors in
complementary and alternative medicine use. BMC complementary and alternative
medicine. 18(1). p.25.
7

8

9

10

11

12