Introduction
The inclusion of alternative or complementary therapies in the treatment process is a matter of an ethical nature and, therefore, should be considered through the lens of corresponding considerations. The challenge of their adoption is conditional upon the dubious efficiency of some of the implemented measures due to the lack of scientific evidence. Even though these solutions seem preferable for healthcare employees seeking to improve the quality of medical services rendered to their patients, they should be cautiously approached (Hall et al., 2017). The lack of regulations in this respect might harm individuals, and the only possible cases when their use is possible are the situations implying the absence of direct risks when other methods do not help.
Complementary Therapies Not Supported by Scientific Evidence
The problem with the adoption of alternative therapies for treating different conditions without their prior scientific examination is connected to the lack of experience of nursing personnel in their implementation. According to a recent study, the majority of nurses demonstrate a positive attitude toward these approaches and integrate them into their regular operations while having no proper formal training (Hall et al., 2017). In this case, the lack of evidence leads to the impossibility of developing education programs for medical specialists on their use, and this fact explains the possibility of damage to patients. From this perspective, the gap in knowledge while using alternative treatment methods contradicts their alleged efficiency and, therefore, should be avoided.
Another circumstance, which explains the impossibility of ensuring the safety of people when adopting complementary practices in the hospital setting without prior research, is the presence of barriers to their introduction. The latest literature review conducted by Veziari et al. (2017) shows that these obstacles to the efficient use of alternative treatment techniques are culture and capacity. In other words, the lack of means for promoting acceptance among the patients, alongside the complexity of suggestions, does not allow them to gain their support. In turn, time limits and organizational resources are insufficient for their effective implementation without a solid scientific base. These considerations allow conclusions on the high probability of failure in using new means of addressing health issues when they are not underpinned by theory and corresponding experiments.
The Appropriateness of Complementary Therapies in Critical Situations
The above factors determine the impossibility of integrating alternative techniques into the daily activity of nursing personnel without research. However, there are specific exceptions to the rule, which are connected to the failure of conventional medications and the confirmed absence of risks in the case of introducing complementary treatment. Thus, for example, the proper assessment of suggested interventions in patients with cancer allows practitioners to recommend them if there are no negative interactions with the prescribed solutions and the possibility of adverse effects is excluded (Stub et al., 2018). From this point of view, the use of methods, which were not scientifically proven, is acceptable for the benefit of the patients.
Conclusion
To summarize, complementary therapies, which are not supported by scientific evidence, are not supposed to be endorsed by nursing personnel. This fact is explained by the lack of expertise in the matter and the absence of organizational resources for their successful implementation without any risks. However, the situations in which the benefits of new means for the patients outweigh those of conventional medications, and there is no conflict between the prescriptions, the use of the former is possible. Thus, the underlying ethical considerations when selecting alternative treatment techniques prevail, whereas the only exceptions are the situations in which the affected persons might have better outcomes without any risks.
References
Hall, H., Leach, M., Brosnan, C., & Collins, M. (2017). Nurses’ attitudes towards complementary therapies: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 69, 47-56.
Stub, T., Quandt, S. A., Arcury, T. A., Sandberg, J. C., & Kristoffersen, A. E. (2018). Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 18(1), 1-12.
Veziari, Y., Leach, M. J., & Kumar, S. (2017). Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: A systematic review.BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 17(1), 1-14.