I am writing in regard to the article, "Ethical aspects of proof and 'alternative therapies,'" that appeared in the Feb 1, 2001 JAVMA (pp 343-346). It seems to me that Drs. Ramey and Rollin have appointed themselves protectors of truth, ethical conduct, and scientific medicine. Unfortunately, I feel that they have embarked on a crusade that has the potential to do much greater harm than good. This would violate the most basic rule'of medicine: first do no harm. They do certainly make some very valid points; however, their ideas of what is true, fair, good, ethical, and scientific are rendered meaningless by making numerous assumptions and generalizations that are not based in fact or truth, scientific or otherwise. Good science is based on objective and accurate observation and interpretation! The authors presume they know what society expects from veterinary medicine, but they cite n6 data or studies to support this presumption. They should be aware that society's expectations and how the medical community fulfills them are evolving everyday. Another assumption the authors make is to lump "the diverse group of treatments" together and then proceed to make sweeping generalizations about their basis in science, efficacy, and safety. They state that veterinarians "...should attempt to ensure...that the effects of treatment are superior to merely allowing a disease to follow its natural course." In my opinion this statement is absurd, because there is no way of predicting the result of a disease following its natural course or whether the effects of treatment are going to lead to a superior outcome.
展开▼
