CAM and the State

Objective

To describe and explain the perceptions of government spokespersons concerning the efforts of CAM groups seeking professional legitimacy.

Materials and methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted with federal, provincial and municipal government spokespersons (10) in the health field. We asked about the potential for CAM groups to (1) gain acceptance as legitimate healthcare professionals and (2) integrate into the healthcare system, and (3) what is the most appropriate role for government in responding to the claims of the CAM groups. Interview responses were independently coded and analysed using Nvivo. Content analysis identified central themes and categories.

Results

1. Most government spokespersons believed that CAM groups have a legitimate place in the formal healthcare system, but listed requirements such as established standards of training and practice, credentialing and evidence of safety and efficacy. Their support for CAM was based on public demand.
2. Government spokespersons favoured integrating CAM with conventional medicine. Most felt that it would work best in hospital settings. Their concern was dangerous interactions between conventional medications and CAM products.
3. All levels of government agreed that they are responding to pressure from consumers for CAM, and that whether CAM groups will be legitimated is ultimately a political decision.

Conclusion

There is a fundamental tension between the state’s mandate to protect the public, and its obligation to respond to their interests. Because there are still questions about the safety and efficacy of CAM, the state is moving slowly to catch up to public acceptance.