首页> 外文期刊>Current Science: A Fortnightly Journal of Research >'Complementary' and 'mainstream' medicine: friend or foe?
【24h】

'Complementary' and 'mainstream' medicine: friend or foe?

机译:“互补”和“主流”医学:敌还是友?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Pal has addressed an issue that is of greater significance than his brief on complementary and alternative medicine. The West belatedly realized that many people used non-allopathic therapies. Logically, ayurveda may have to be considered as mainstream in India because it had been there for centuries before allopathy came along. Western systems patronizingly define complementary and alternative medicine as 'therapies generally not taught nor practised in regular hospitals, lacking evidence of effectiveness and generally not reimbursable by third-party payer. Ayurveda emphasizes that lifestyle measures are integral to comprehensive management. Homeopathy also seeks to allow the body's own systems to correct imbalances. There should be no controversy in applying these principles to preserve health and to treat diseases.
机译:帕尔所解决的问题比他的补充医学和替代医学摘要具有更大的意义。西方人后来才意识到,许多人都在使用非精神疗法。从逻辑上讲,印度草药可能被认为是印度的主流,因为它在变态反应出现之前已经存在了几个世纪了。西方系统光顾地将补充和替代医学定义为“通常在正规医院中都没有教授或实践的疗法,缺乏有效的证据,而且第三方支付者通常无法报销。阿育吠陀(Ayurveda)强调,生活方式措施是全面管理必不可少的。顺势疗法还试图使人体自身的系统纠正不平衡。将这些原则用于维护健康和治疗疾病应该没有争议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号