The president of the AMA has distanced himself from the Friends of Science in Medicine group, which is calling for universities to ditch courses in unproven alternative therapies.
Dr Steve Hambleton was one of the names originally included on a list of about 440 academics and scientists who joined the Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) cause.
But he expressed concern that the group, which has been accused of launching a witch-hunt against alternative health practitioners, may cast its criticisms too wide.
“I was initially approached because of allegations that the University of Central Queensland was offering a chiropractic course based on [the unproven concept] of subluxation [the idea that illness results from misalignments of the spine]. There is clearly an issue and I was happy with that. My name briefly appeared on the FSM website. But I am unable to commit the names of 26,000 doctors I represent to the views of the FSM in its entirety, especially when its views are unspecified. I can only do that on a case-by-case basis.”
The FSM recently wrote to every vice-chancellor in Australia asking for a review of their health science courses to “ensure that primacy is given to scientific principles based on experimental evidence”.
The letter criticised the spread of chiropractic studies to 19 Australian universities, and said it was concerned that energy medicine, tactile healing homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, acupuncture and reflexology were being taught as if they were science.
Alternative health practitioners have rejected the criticisms, claiming their therapies have a legitimate role in treating patients.
One of the leading members of the FSM, Professor Alastair MacLennan, an obstetrician, said this week that some universities were teaching therapies without a scientific basis.
Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia (5 March) he stressed that FSM supported research into alternative and complementary approaches.
But he added: “Some university courses purport to teach critical thinking about these approaches and promote research into them. Both are appropriate objectives if they are not a subterfuge for awarding qualifications to practise these therapies.”
MJA 2012; 196:225-26.