This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Saul Green, PhD

JAMA. 1992;268(22):3224-3227.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

WHEN THE RATIONALES offered in support of most unorthodox medical treatments are critically examined, they are frequently found to be scientifically invalid. Yet, according to a recent survey,¹ over 60% of the practitioners of "unproven treatments" for cancer hold an MD, a PhD, or both, from an accredited medical school or graduate school. Therefore, when a patient asks his or her physician for an explanation of an unproven medical treatment being offered by another trained and licensed physician, it is not enough for the patient's physician to simply label the "unorthodox" treatment as quackery. To make an effective contribution to the patient's understanding and decision-making process, the clinician must know whether the claims being made for the treatment are supported by scientific evidence and he or she must be able to discuss that evidence in language that is understood by the patient.

The explanations justifying the use of coffee . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From Zol Consultants, Inc, New York, NY. Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?