Introduction
One of the most controversial and most-talked issues in the field of medicine is the topic about the use of complementary and alternative medicines. Apparently, there are two sides in this story. Can it really help improve the health outcomes of the patients or it is just a form of a make-believe drug just like other drugs that only offer placebo effects to users? Some people believe that complementary and alternative medicines have positive effects especially when treating specific diseases. On the other hand, some also believe that it cannot heal diseases like most approved, proven, and tested medications.
Let us use the drug Rifampin as an example. Rifampin is deemed to be a very effective drug in treating lung tuberculosis. Its presence in the field of pharmacotherapeutics is renowned that not every single physician and pharmacist knows the nature of this drug. Now, what would happen if a patient with tuberculosis’ drug treatment using Rifampin fails? There is likely a chance that the physician will recommend other medications but for the family, they may start to doubt the effectiveness of common traditional medicine in addressing the problems and they may start to resort to complementary and alternative medicine. Now, the question is, would it help or would it not?
There is actually a slight difference between complementary and alternative drugs. Complementary drugs are the drugs being used as a complement to other treatments (Baldwin, 2002). Examples of treatments where complementary drugs are used are chemotherapy and other radiologic treatments. Studies have shown that use of complementary drugs in such treatments could enhance the effects of a particular therapy. Alternative drugs on the other hand often refer to herbal drugs although they may also refer to drugs that do not belong to the norms of pharmacotherapy (Kenny, 2006).
One particular location where the effectiveness of these drugs could be proven is in Ontario, Canada. What we are trying to address in this paper is the question whether the provincial government should support funding for the use of complementary and alternative medicine in conventional health care.
Main Argument
We believe that the government should fully support the growth, development and use of complementary and alternative medicines in Ontario, especially in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. Aside from the fact that it is a growing trend in the field of medicine, many experts are also becoming a fan of it. These highly educated doctors and pharmacy experts would not be amazed if using these medicines as treatment did not yield positive results for the patients who have tried. Complementary Therapy is a growing trend in Ontario and almost 75 percent of the Canadian population has actually started buying alternative products or services. Some even report that they use such products or services daily (Gilmour et al., 2002). Actually, this is one of the reasons why we chose this topic; because many people believe that it could be effective in preventing diseases although nothing has been proven about the products that they usually buy yet.
Premise 2
Research and development of drugs could take a minimum of 5 years before they get released to the market (Alderman, 2003). The drug is first tested to animals to check whether it could cause adverse effects. This stage usually lasts for less than one year depending on the effects of the tests. The second stage will involve tests on humans under a standardized number of a hundred people. This is where the effectiveness of the drug will be tested and where the developers could see if there are any adverse effects of using that drug to humans. The second and third stage is pretty much the same with the second stage of drug introduction only that it has to be tested on larger groups of people. The third stage requires that the drug be tested on 200-300 subjects while the fourth stage requires that the drug be tested on at least a thousand subjects. The last part only involves follow up tests and reintegration and after that, the drug could already be introduced and used to and for the community. This means that it takes a long time just to develop a new drug and make it ready for public consumption and is a burden for CAM developers and of course, for those who think and believe that CAMs have positive effects similar to the ones being prescribed to them by their doctors even not enough literature discuss the issue.
Objection to Premise 2
The process of verifying the effects of newly formulated drugs started as early as the 1950s (Coleen, 2003) but drug and medical product developers, including the ones in Ontario Canada, have had no problems with such process. All organizations and companies who develop these CAM or drugs are mostly satisfied with the safety value and other perks that come with or by following the process. Therefore, it cannot be used as an excuse to impose that the government should provide financial support for the research and development of CAM.
Reply to Objection
Some may have no problems when it comes to the process of developing and introducing a new drug, but CAMs are almost entirely different types of drugs from their traditional counterparts. Would not it be logical to think that these almost entirely different types of drugs deserve a treat or some sort of a welcome ceremony from the Canadian Government because these medicines possess great potential; they can revolutionize the current field of medicine and pharmacotherapeutics (DC Insider, 2012).
Premise 3
Apart from the length of time required before a drug could be used by the public, research and development of complementary and alternative medicines could cost a lot of resources that without enough financial and of course, moral support from the government, development of these medical products would both be meaningless and fruitless. The stages of introducing a drug to the community are great enough punishments for developers of complementary and alternative medicine in Ontario, Canada so the government should at least try to lessen the burden of these complementary and alternative medicine developers and users by providing sufficient financial support.
Objection to Premise 3
It is the responsibility of the companies who want to invest in the development of new medical products which in this case are complementary and alternative medicinal products, to see to it that they could make both ends meet while trying to achieve positive outcomes when it comes to the effectiveness and overall safety of their medical products. Whether the government will support such projects or researches is discretionary. Usually, drugs and medical products are measured by their therapeutic index. The higher this value is, the more safe and effective that drug could be (Kang, 2006). Most CAMs do not have corresponding therapeutic indexes. Some of them do not even have approved therapeutic claims. Yes, there may be a significant amount of people buying and taking these medicines even on a daily basis, but it was never stated whether these things are really effective medically or not. In the field of medicine, everything should be backed by literature and without support from literatures; the claimed effects and benefits of CAMs will remain purely theoretical.
Reply to Objection
The exact reason why the government should provide financial support for the use and development of complementary and alternative medicine is for it to be backed with medicine. Many people are already welcoming the presence of CAMs in different drug stores and supermarkets in Ontario. In a few months or so, many researches about the effectiveness of CAMs should have been initiated if ever the government will agree to support such movement financially. The researches usually require a certain amount of resources (in the form of money or manpower) for them to be carried out. The problem is the industry of CAMs is only at a starting point; therefore, it could really use some support from the government. What the government only has to consider is the gains that the whole community of Ontario will get should the researches be carried out successfully. From a fair and analytical point of view, we think that the future of CAMs is promising.
Conclusion
Based on the evidences gathered and the arguments and objections proclaimed, it would only be fair to believe that the government should really provide adequate, sufficient, and prompt financial support for the development and use of complementary and alternative drugs in Ontario, Canada. CAMs may not yet be backed by a lot of literatures, but it will be once the government of Ontario starts to support and welcome its presence. The industry of CAMs in Ontario is actually experiencing a steady growth and that should be considered a good start. The next thing that the government should do is to fund the researches and development strategies involved with these medicinal products to justify their usefulness and effectiveness. This way, both sides (the agonists and antagonists) will be satisfied. After being backed by studies, the field of complementary and alternative medicine should experience a very big percentage of growth. By that time, the government could already pull out its support in case it needs to focus more resources on something else because the CAMs industry will already be a stable one by then.
Works Cited
Coleen, H. (2003). Identification and verification of critical performance dimensions. Pharm World Sci.
DC Insider. (2012). New Startups offer alternative to FDA’s Inept Drug Side Effects Database. DC Insider.
Baldwin, C. (2002). A profile of military veterans in the southwestern United States who use complementary and alternative medicine. Archieves of Internal Medicine.
Kenny, D. (2006). Alternative Medicine: What it really is. Archives of Internal Medicine.
Alderman, C. (2003). Different Uses of Complementary Medicine. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy.
Kang, J. (2006). Factors related to the choice between traditional and alternative medicine. Chinese Medical Journal.
