Patients who face serious ill­nesses are sometimes attracted to alternative medicines, also referred to as “holistic” or “new age” medi­cines. These can include treatments like homeopathy, hypnosis, “energy therapies” like Reiki, acupuncture, and herbal remedies, to name just a few. 

These approaches raise various medical and ethical concerns. An important 1998 article in the New England Journal of Medicine sums it up this way: 

“What most sets alternative medicine apart, in our view, is that it has not been scientifi­cally tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing. By testing, we mean the marshaling of rigorous evidence of safety and efficacy, as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the approval of drugs and by the best peer-reviewed medical journals for the publi­cation of research reports.”

Beyond the fact that their clinical efficacy has not earned a passing grade using ordinary meth­ods of scientific investigation, the basic premise behind some alterna­tive medicines can also be highly suspect, raising concerns about su­perstitious viewpoints or mis­guided forms of spirituality moti­vating certain therapies.

If we consider acupuncture, this technique does appear to provide benefit in certain cases of pain control. Yet similar results have been reported using “sham” needles — tapping the skin in random places with a thin metal tube. Brain scans have demon­strated that treatment with genu­ine needles, as opposed to the sham needles, does cause detect­able changes in the brain. But, when researchers ignored acu­puncturists’ recommended “me­ridian placement” of needles, and instead did random placement in the skin, the same brain effects were observed. 

Hence, it is un­clear whether the results seen from acupuncture arise mostly from the well-known “placebo effect” or not. Further research should help resolve this question.

Even if the observed effects are not placebo-related, acu­puncture’s non-rational justifica­tion for its purported effective­ness remains a concern. It is based on energy principles that neither science nor faith affirm. Glenn Braunstein, M.D. de­scribed it critically in the follow­ing way:

“Ch’i, the invisible nutritive en­ergy that flows from the uni­verse into the body at any one of 500 acupuncture points, is conducted through the 12 main meridians [channels] in (ideally) an unbroken circle. Meridians conduct either Yin energy (from the sun) or Yang energy (from the earth). All maladies are caused by disharmony or distur­bances in the flow of energy.”

Clearly, then, some alternative therapies, beyond the basic issue about whether they work, raise seri­ous spiritual concerns as well. 

Another new age therapy known as Reiki, developed in Japan in the late 1800s, claims that sickness can be caused by a disruption or imbalance in a patient’s “Reiki” or “life energy.” Reiki practitioners try to heal a pa­tient by placing their hands in certain positions on the body in order to facilitate the flow of Reiki from the practitioner to the patient. 

A 2009 document from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stresses, "In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers" that can arise by turning to Reiki. The document notes that be­cause Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or sci­entific evidence, it would be inappro­priate for Catholics to put their trust in the method, be­cause to do so would be to operate "in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science."

Scientific investigations of an­other new age therapy, the popular herbal remedy known as echinacea (taken early to ward off a cold) have revealed no difference between echi­nacea and a placebo in controlled studies involving several hundred subjects. While some herbal remedies may be harmless and inert placebos, others may have more serious health consequences if ingested above cer­tain dosages due to ingredients of unknown potency derived from natu­ral substances.

Sometimes a remedy can be bor­rowed from Chinese, Indian or an­other medical tradition, but it should be chosen for its efficacy, safety, and reasonable mode of action, and not be in conflict with principles of sound medical science or Christian teaching.

Health improvements that arise from alternative remedies may be due not only to the placebo effect, but also to the fact that patients are usu­ally given more time, attention and focused concern by alternative prac­titioners than by traditional phy­si­cians. This can translate into modi­fied habits and changed lifestyles, leading to various health benefits.

Modern medicine can be legiti­mately faulted for downplaying this dimension, so that, in the memorable words of pediatrician Jay Perman, “Doctors tend to end up trained in silos of specialization,” in which they are taught “to make a diagnosis, pre­scribe a therapy, and we’re done. But we’re not done.” 

The famous Greek physician Hippocrates once noted the same point: “It is more important to know what sort of person has a disease than to know what sort of disease a person has.” Today’s physicians-in-training, fortunately, are seeking to incorporate more and more of these “patient-centric” and “holistic” as­pects into their own traditional medi­cal practices to improve patient care and outcomes.

 Copyright © 2020, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, Philadelphia, PA. All rights reserved.