Review of Medicines and Medical Devices—Complementary Medicines Submission.
Submitted by Dr Barbara Newman, NSW Consumers Group
Date: 19th March 2015
Australia and in particular, the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health, claim to operate
and function within an evidence based model of healthcare. It is clear that whilst the best
practitioners attempt to do this, some decision making must relate to and encourage client/patient
input and co-operation. Practitioners should not be the only ones to determine benefits, risks and
medical outcomes. With this principle as the corner stone within this submission it is therefore
important that complementary medicines be seen as an integral component of pathways adopted by
clients/patients in partnership with their GPs, Specialists.
It is true that several complementary therapies/ medications have not provided the accuracy in
benefit to patients/client or evidence that those more conservative practitioners require to make
definitive medication outcomes. The fact is until an individual patient/client commences a journey
on a particular medication or therapy, those who are the prescribers, cannot predict with 100%
accuracy the outcome because the variable, in the mix is the individual’s uniqueness in response to
that particular medication. So much on what is written, tried and tested in healthcare is subjected to
human variations and probability. These variations may be, physical, genetic, psycho-social,
patterns of consumption, own personal belief systems and indeed what expressed outcomes the
person is requiring. For example—most patients/clients do not want to consume medications for
osteoporosis that cause some damage to liver and/or kidneys. Frequently in this country both GPs
and specialists endocrinologists when explaining the benefit of very expensive pharmaceutical
company produced medications for osteoporosis fail to mention each and every side effect and
contra-indication and long term effect on these vital organs. It may be that a more, individually
designed alternative can be effectively implemented with a complementary medicine base.
Therefore it is important that any constraint on exclusion of what, I would describe as – wholistic
approach to best practice health care must NOT exclude complementary medicine by the
Therapeutic Goods Administration. The benefits to the individual patient/client can only be
assessed by that person despite all the publicity about maintaining an evidence based approach.
Patients/clients suffering breast cancer for example gain enormous comfort, strength and sense of
wellbeing by enjoying massage therapy, and aroma therapy for example. On the other hand there
are some Chinese herbs which are contraindicated for use when a patient/client is undertaking
chemo-therapy. If a patient/client has trust in her/his GP and specialist, this information will and
should be discussed before chemotherapy is commenced. The patient/client is dependent upon an
open, transparent and trusting relationship between themselves and the GP/specialists. If the
Therapeutic Goods Administration constrain the use of Complementary Therapies and medications
patients/client will go underground to seek information and use their required alternative. In many
European countries, the inclusion of complementary medical practitioners as part of the
multidisciplinary team is very much part of every day medical practice in the 21st century. Australia
cannot lag behind in this or deliver condemnations to such a system when in the centre of all
decision making should be the patient/client and the wellbeing of these people. The risks and
benefits must be acknowledged and understood by the client/patient and subsequent decisions taken
in light of this.