In the letter by Fair Minded, MMA, stop misleading public o­n alternative health-care , it appears that the name Fair Minded is itself a misnomer. While I agree that allopathic doctors are not trained in alternative healthcare, there is a governing body regarding the dispensing of healthcare products to the general population regardless of whether it is alternative or otherwise. If not we may have a repeat of the tragedy that happened to Pierre Png's girlfriend.

People are more enticed by alternative methods that have a fewer side effects. However, there is usually little evidence o­n the efficacy of alternative methods, contrary to Fair Minded's beliefs that it is based o­n "excellent principles of medicine, science and technology". Success in o­ne or even a few persons does not prove that it is an effective and safe method. For instance, if we prescribe a medication, it may be more efficacious in some and less in others. The side effect profile will also differ.

For alternative methods to be equally recognised allopathic methods, it then has to undergo equally stringent measures employed in modern medicine. Practitioners themselves have to be highly trained, medicines have to be tested in clinical trials, and a legitimate body has to be in place to monitor these practitioners. There is little use in claiming the wonders of 'grandmother's special concoction', without first proving its worth.

I am well aware of the resistance of the alternative medicine community in accepting these basic measures. Fair Minded has to agree that there are many unscrupulous practitioners of alternative medicines, even in Malaysia.

For instance, I have come across alternative practitioners advising my diabetic and hypertensive patients to stop their usual medicines and try their 'secret remedy'. Sadly, many patients return with uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension, in extreme cases stroke or kidney failure. If doctors are constantly monitored for negligence, who then monitors these practitioners?

Allopathic medicines are based o­n sound research, proven efficacy and strict safety guidelines. There is no room for personal and delusional beliefs. Can alternative practitioners guarantee the same? If allopathic medicine "only covers the basics o­n subjects like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology, medicine and surgery along with some of the miscellaneous subjects like jurisprudence", what does alternative medicine cover? Botany?

If the basic foundation to practice medical care for the sick is six years of gruelling training, what is the basic foundation of alternative practice? If "allopathic practitioners should not start interfering in something they are not trained in", so should alternative practitioners in healthcare! If doctors are revealing their "dubious and defunct minds to the Malaysian public", what are the alternative practitioners revealing? A golden egg?

If Fair Minded can give incontrovertible evidence that there is a better and a more effective treatment for cancer, the allopathic community will be more than happy to listen. Any effective alternative to chemotherapy is most welcome.

If "doctors inculcate such terrible fear into the hearts and minds of cancer patients that they resign themselves into accepting any and everything that is told to them by their doctors", then alternative practitioners should stop preying o­n the psychological vulnerabilities of cancer patients and paint a mirage of a superior alternative.

I think both medicine systems should work to complementing each other. As mortals and lesser beings, we are not any superior than the other. Perhaps by drawing o­n each other's strengths, humans could achieve greater heights in healthcare. But alternative practice should not be allowed to stand alone based o­n current facts.