Complementary and Alternative Medicine: An Academic View
that it is fi rst necessary to escape a terminology that involves the concept of ‘alternative’: this defi nition, which has been used in recent years, considers the practice of CAM as optional, justifying its use when scientifi cally sanctioned treatment is not available, or has failed. In English, the terms ‘alternative’ and ‘complementary’ are mostly used, underlining a specifi c relationship with biomedicine. However, in France, CAM is known as ‘médecines parallèles’, with the precise intention of stressing the constant distance between orthodoxy and non-conventional medicine. Often, it is a negative defi nition such as ‘not orthodox’, ‘not offi cial’ that is used highlighting what these medicines are not. CAM treatments greatly differ from one another, but they have a common feature in that they often do not have their theoretical foundation in basic biological sciences. CAM therapies were very widely promoted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in many western countries, particularly North America. In the western world, their use is currently on the increase, especially in Englishspeaking societies. Recent data from the National Health Interview Survey (USA) indicate that in the 12 months previous to the interview, 33.5% of American women used CAM. Caucasian, elderly and educated individuals were more likely to use CAM [3] . Other recent data point In the last 20 years international scientifi c literature has shown a steady increase in discussions concerning complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) [1] . When dealing with this subject, many issues arise. It is imperative to understand fi rstly the kind of medical reality concealed beyond the names of these practices and secondly, the problems posed to the medical profession by their increased therapeutic usage. Important questions further arise regarding the introduction of CAM therapies in medical curricula. The reconstruction of the cultural context within which CAM has developed cannot escape a historical and linguistic refl ection: a semantic analysis clearly indicates that this terminology is a well-defi ned historical product and conceals a specifi c conceptualisation that very often also involves a value judgement. In 2000, the British House of Lords, through a select committee, commissioned research to illuminate the then current status of ‘complementary therapies’, in an attempt to understand the CAM therapies that could be considered real medical treatments [2] . The Commission classifi ed therapies into three well-defi ned groups: Principle Disciplines, Complementary Treatments and Alternative Disciplines. The linguistic problem here revealed is substantial rather than formal. The Commission stated Received: September 10, 2004 Revised: March 14, 2005