Response to article review 2
Thank you, (name) for a well-structured and detailed review on Kaptchuk and Miller’s article. The article indeed explains the difference in alternative and mainstream medicine as well as the best and most ethical model in medicine. You have evaluated each of the three models, the opposition, integration, and pluralism model, and explained why each of them is either effective or ineffective in providing the best medical care to patients.
The author’s argument about the models have been excellently presented. You have discussed how each of the models work and their effects on the wellbeing of patients. The opposition model tries to prove that either mainstream or alternative medicine is better. This, therefore, does not do any good for either side. The integration model does not allow the patients to know about the various models and, therefore, cannot choose the kind of treatment they prefer. The pluralism model forms and maintains a positive relationship between alternative and mainstream medicine. I like that you have provided evidence as to why you support the author’s opinion of the pluralism model being the best and most ethical model. I also like that you have offered considerations to note while utilizing the pluralism model. This calls for health care professionals to educate the patients on all their options and also steer them to make the best decision.
Even though you have discussed in detail how the pluralism model works, you have failed to give the other models the same weight. The discussion on the opposition and integration models is brief and would be hard for the readers to understand. I would, therefore, recommend a more detailed explanation on all models.
Reference
Kaptchuk, T. J., & Miller, F. G. (2005). : What is the Best and Most Ethical Model for the Relationship Between Mainstream and Alternative Medicine: Opposition, Integration, or Pluralism?. Academic medicine, 80(3), 286-290.