They said nurses should integrate Alternative remedies in a formal nursing care plan
Dear Editor:
I believe your article: Regulatory issues in CAM (TheCase Manager Volume 16, Issue 1 , January-February 2005, Pages 17-23) challenges the integrity of our profession when it seems to encourage the case manager to consider offering and integrating CAM modalities into the formal medical care plan.
While using the word "ethics" to associate patient safety risks the common shallow suggestion that herbal supplements are safer than prescription drugs appears.
The article presents CAM as another alternative to "orthodox" medicine and states that "subtle forms of harm can manifest" when this option is ignored in clinical decision making.
Nothing is said about the subtle harm done by advocating costly, and potentially useless modalities. Or of the ethics of mixing vitalistic beliefs and pseudo-scientific terms with science-based practice so they are no longer discernible. Or of the risks associated with the passing-off to the patient faith-based rituals as one would a prescription pill.
The author goes on to suggest fault of the clinician in a communication rift for not "understanding" a CAMmodality.
Ethically, it becomes the responsibility of the casemanager to help the patient understand why a CAM therapy is not "orthodox." That it doesn't fit within a medical care plan as a standard of practice because clinical outcomes are not predictable or established, carry unknown health and monetary risks, or are just not based on known physiologic or scientific principles. At the same time, the case manager should not hesitate to agree that there are things that are done individually to compliment the clinical careplan, that may help with the chances for success. Not the least of which could be associated with some formof "complimentary" intervention.
-dras
I believe your article: Regulatory issues in CAM (TheCase Manager Volume 16, Issue 1 , January-February 2005, Pages 17-23) challenges the integrity of our profession when it seems to encourage the case manager to consider offering and integrating CAM modalities into the formal medical care plan.
While using the word "ethics" to associate patient safety risks the common shallow suggestion that herbal supplements are safer than prescription drugs appears.
The article presents CAM as another alternative to "orthodox" medicine and states that "subtle forms of harm can manifest" when this option is ignored in clinical decision making.
Nothing is said about the subtle harm done by advocating costly, and potentially useless modalities. Or of the ethics of mixing vitalistic beliefs and pseudo-scientific terms with science-based practice so they are no longer discernible. Or of the risks associated with the passing-off to the patient faith-based rituals as one would a prescription pill.
The author goes on to suggest fault of the clinician in a communication rift for not "understanding" a CAMmodality.
Ethically, it becomes the responsibility of the casemanager to help the patient understand why a CAM therapy is not "orthodox." That it doesn't fit within a medical care plan as a standard of practice because clinical outcomes are not predictable or established, carry unknown health and monetary risks, or are just not based on known physiologic or scientific principles. At the same time, the case manager should not hesitate to agree that there are things that are done individually to compliment the clinical careplan, that may help with the chances for success. Not the least of which could be associated with some formof "complimentary" intervention.
-dras
posted by nawledge at
8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home