Introduction: Towards a critical social science of cam in nursing and midwifery

Adams, J; Tovey, P

Introduction: Towards a critical social science of cam in nursing and midwifery

Adams, J

Tovey, P

Permalink

Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: 2014, pp. 1 - 8
Issue Date:: 2014-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2010006465OK.pdf		708.02 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Adams, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9901-5717	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Tovey, P	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	2014, pp. 1 - 8	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	0415368472	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9780415368476	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/16756
dc.description.abstract	© 2008, selection and editorial matter Jon Adams and Philip Tovey; individual chapters, the contributors. Within the last decade there have been significant developments in the relationship between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) l and biomedical provision. Rhetorics of integration have become increasingly commonplace and an air of consensus, about the incorporation of CAM, as an accompaniment or supplement to conventional treatments, has become apparent. Regardless of the potential barriers to successfull integration (Barrett 2003; Hughes 2004; Coulter 2004) the rising tide of popularity of these medicines amongst both providers and consumers has helped cement CAM as a key public health and health care/provision issue (Bodeker and Kronenberg 2002; Giordano et al. 2003). But with the emergence of consensus comes the potential for a less critical and distanced analysis of the integrative process. This is a tendency, we argue, that should be resisted.	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.4324/9780203019948-9	en_US
dc.title	Introduction: Towards a critical social science of cam in nursing and midwifery	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

© 2008, selection and editorial matter Jon Adams and Philip Tovey; individual chapters, the contributors. Within the last decade there have been significant developments in the relationship between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) l and biomedical provision. Rhetorics of integration have become increasingly commonplace and an air of consensus, about the incorporation of CAM, as an accompaniment or supplement to conventional treatments, has become apparent. Regardless of the potential barriers to successfull integration (Barrett 2003; Hughes 2004; Coulter 2004) the rising tide of popularity of these medicines amongst both providers and consumers has helped cement CAM as a key public health and health care/provision issue (Bodeker and Kronenberg 2002; Giordano et al. 2003). But with the emergence of consensus comes the potential for a less critical and distanced analysis of the integrative process. This is a tendency, we argue, that should be resisted.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/16756