Jansen Eva
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Complement Med Res. 2017;24(5):290-294. doi: 10.1159/000475549. Epub 2017 Sep 22.
This paper examines a paradox in the German healthcare system: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices are a major element of medical encounters in Germany. Patients seek them, physicians provide them, and public health insurances pay for them in part. Despite all this, CAM practices are not acknowledged as scientifically valid.
I will examine this situation in detail based on 2 ethnographic studies. The first study refers to an attempt to introduce homeopathic education at a German university. The second one is a study in the context of cancer and CAM. These cases are perfect examples of the current power struggles that are impeding the expansion of CAM practices in Germany.
The results should be seen from the theoretical angle of the study of science. The conventional method of proving scientific validity is in contradiction to those frameworks in which the impact of CAM might be demonstrated. There are economic interests invested in preventing the integration of CAM into existing scientific structures. However, the current hybridization of CAM with conventional medicine might be a step towards an institutionalized heterogenization of medical practices in Germany.
A broader understanding of scientific methods within the CAM community could provide a useful frame for future research. I suggest that the CAM community more actively takes part in the discourse with representatives of conventional medicine and come out of the closet.
本文探讨德国医疗体系中的一个悖论：补充和替代医学（CAM）实践是德国医疗接触中的一个主要元素。患者寻求这些疗法，医生提供这些疗法，公共医疗保险也部分支付费用。尽管如此，CAM实践并未被视为具有科学有效性。
我将基于两项人种志研究详细考察这种情况。第一项研究涉及德国一所大学尝试引入顺势疗法教育。第二项研究是在癌症与CAM背景下展开的。这些案例是当前阻碍德国CAM实践扩展的权力斗争的完美例证。
应从科学研究的理论角度看待这些结果。证明科学有效性的传统方法与可能证明CAM影响的那些框架相矛盾。在阻止CAM融入现有科学结构方面存在经济利益。然而，目前CAM与传统医学的融合可能是德国医疗实践走向制度化异质化的一步。
CAM领域对科学方法有更广泛的理解可为未来研究提供有用框架。我建议CAM领域更积极地与传统医学代表展开对话，并公开表明立场。
