IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i5p915-930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responses of established healthcare to the professionalization of complementary and alternative medicine in Ontario

Author

Listed:
  • Kelner, Merrijoy
  • Wellman, Beverly
  • Boon, Heather
  • Welsh, Sandy

Abstract

This paper examines the reactions of leaders of established health professions in Ontario, Canada to the efforts of selected complementary and alternative (CAM) occupational groups (chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncture/traditional Chinese doctors, homeopaths and Reiki practitioners) to professionalize. Stakeholder theory provides the framework for analysis of competing interests among the various groups in the healthcare system. The data are derived from personal interviews with 10 formal leaders from medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, clinical nutrition and public health. We conceived of these leaders as one group of stakeholders, with both common and conflicting interests. The findings demonstrate that these stakeholders are reluctant to endorse the professionalization of CAM. They propose a series of strategies to contain the acceptance of CAM groups, such as insisting on scientific evidence of safety and efficacy, resisting integration of CAM with conventional medicine and opposing government support for research and education. These strategies serve to protect the dominant position of medicine and its allied professions, and to maintain existing jurisdictional boundaries within the healthcare system. The popular support for CAM will require that health professional stakeholders continue to address the challenges this poses, and at the same time protect their position at the apex of the healthcare pyramid.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelner, Merrijoy & Wellman, Beverly & Boon, Heather & Welsh, Sandy, 2004. "Responses of established healthcare to the professionalization of complementary and alternative medicine in Ontario," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 915-930, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:5:p:915-930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00701-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adams, Tracey L. & Wannamaker, Kaitlin, 2022. "Professional regulation, profession-state relations and the pandemic response: Australia, Canada, and the UK compared," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Timmons, Edward & Hockenberry, Jason & Piette Durrance, Christine, 2016. "More Battles among Licensed Occupations: Estimating the Effects of Scope of Practice and Direct Access on the Chiropractic, Physical Therapist, and Physician Labor Market," Annals of Computational Economics, George Mason University, Mercatus Center, September.
    3. Wahlberg, Ayo, 2007. "A quackery with a difference--New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2307-2316, December.
    4. Tovey, P. & Broom, Alex, 2007. "Oncologists' and specialist cancer nurses' approaches to complementary and alternative medicine and their impact on patient action," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2550-2564, June.
    5. Chung, Vincent C.H. & Hillier, Sheila & Lau, Chun Hong & Wong, Samuel Y.S. & Yeoh, Eng Kiong & Griffiths, Sian M., 2011. "Referral to and attitude towards traditional Chinese medicine amongst western medical doctors in postcolonial Hong Kong," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 247-255, January.
    6. Kelner, Merrijoy & Wellman, Beverly & Welsh, Sandy & Boon, Heather, 2006. "How far can complementary and alternative medicine go? The case of chiropractic and homeopathy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2617-2627, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:5:p:915-930. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.