Macartney John I, Wahlberg Ayo
1University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Qual Health Res. 2014 Jan;24(1):114-23. doi: 10.1177/1049732313518977. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
Commentators such as Goldacre, Dawkins, and Singh and Ernst are worried that the rise in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) represents a flight from science propagated by enemies of reason. We outline what kind of problem CAM use is for these commentators, and find that users of CAM have been constituted as duped, ignorant, irrational, or immoral in explaining CAM use. However, this form of problematization can be described as a flight from social science. We explore CAM use in light of a rigorous and robust social scientific body of knowledge about how individuals engage with CAM. By pointing to the push and pull factors, CAM user's experiences of their body, and the problem of patient choice in CAM use, we summarize some of the key findings made by social scientists and show how they trouble many of the reasoned assumptions about CAM use.
像戈德acre、道金斯、辛格和恩斯特这样的评论家担心，补充和替代医学（CAM）的兴起代表着一场由理性敌人推动的对科学的背离。我们概述了对这些评论家而言，使用补充和替代医学是何种问题，并发现补充和替代医学的使用者在解释其使用行为时被塑造成了受骗、无知、不理性或不道德的形象。然而，这种问题化形式可被描述为对社会科学的逃避。我们依据关于个体如何接触补充和替代医学的严谨且丰富的社会科学知识体系来探讨补充和替代医学的使用情况。通过指出推动和拉动因素、补充和替代医学使用者对自身身体的体验以及补充和替代医学使用中的患者选择问题，我们总结了社会科学家的一些关键发现，并展示了这些发现如何困扰了许多关于补充和替代医学使用的合理假设。
