Mainstream medicine versus complementary and alternative medicine in the witness box: resolving the clash of ideologies

Mainstream medical philosophy and practice differ in many respects from those of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), differences which are explored in this article. Because of a resurgence of CAM therapies, courts and tribunals will scrutinise CAM in more and more contexts in the future. Such court cases may require the resolution of conflicts between opinions of CAM and medical experts. This article considers how courts evaluate such opinions where experts hold conflicting ideologies or philosophical approaches, and addresses the following questions: Do the opinions of CAM practitioners qualify as "expert" opinions in court? How do the courts examine the basis of such opinions? Are they systematically given less weight than the opinions of mainstream medical practitioners? Will recent procedural reforms for hearing expert evidence make it easier for courts to resolve these issues?