Aakster, C.W. “Concepts in Alternative Medicine.” Social Science and Medicine 22.2 (1986): 265-273. Science Direct. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

Although the main point of the article is to address alternative medicine as observed in the Netherlands, Aakster does do a decent job at examining popular alternative practices, such as acupuncture and homeopathy, in a non-locale-specific method. The real advantage of this article, however, is when Aakster addresses specific concepts in medicine, such as heath, disease, diagnosis, therapy, and the role of the patient, and how alternative medicine (what he calls the holistic model) and conventional medicine (the pharmaceutical model) view these concepts. Furthermore, he takes time to address medicine’s link to political and social influences. His summary is a crucial piece of the article as it rather explicitly demonstrates a support for alternative thinking and practices.

Fontanarosa, Phil B., MD, and George D. Lundberg, MD. “Alternative Medicine Meets Science.” Journal of the American Medical Association 280.18 (Nov. 1998): 1618-1619. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

Fontanarosa and Lundberg address what is often called alternative medicine, noting that such a definition is erroneous because alternative medicine does not rely on scientific standards. They elaborate more fully on the lack of scientific studies done using alternative practices, and they point to this as the reason why such practices should not be accepted. Furthermore, they call for awareness and additional research into alternative practices, essentially suggesting that alternative medicine should be held to the same (scientific) standards as conventional medicine. Since this article appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association and is written by two doctors, it presented itself as a good resource for the defense of conventional medicine. 

Kaptchuk, Ted J., OMD, and Franklin G. Miller, PhD. “What is the Best and Most Ethical Model for the Relationship Between Mainstream and Alternative Medicine: Opposition, Integration, or Pluralism?” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 80.3 (Mar. 2005): 286-290. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

A viewpoint article in which the authors discuss the various definitions and approaches found within the two different branches of medicine—mainstream medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)—and the three relationship models between them: opposition, integration and pluralism. Kaptchuk and Miller see the hostilities between conventional and alternative medicine (the opposition) as relying too much on the binary opposition and rhetoric associated with it and thus argue that integration is not a practical way of relating the two together. Instead, they advocate pluralism, which positions both approaches as equally appropriate and beneficial methods without sacrificing the epistemological differences between them, a stance that I find myself most agreeing with. 

Mayo Clinic staff. “Complementary and alternative medicine.” mayoclinic.com. Mayo Clinic, 20 Oct. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

Cited for statistic of popularized use of alternative medicine among adults.

Mornstein, Vojtěch. “Alternative Medicine and Pseudoscience: Comments of a Biophysicist.” Skeptical Inquirer (Nov.-Dec. 2002): 40-43. Gale Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

Mornstein examines several popularized alternative practices, including energy manipulation, homeopathy, acupuncture, psychic healing, and healing diets, to elaborate on how they do not fit within normal scientific and biophysical understanding. He also describes the distortion of science that alternative medicine relies on, setting up a binary opposition between the two branches. His conclusion is that alternative practices pose a danger to consumers and society since they often sound like true science. While this article was published in a journal dealing with skepticism, and could possibly seem like farcical resource, it nevertheless contains a biophysicist’s point of view as well as a good example of the often highly inflammatory rhetoric of conventional medicine’s view of alternative medicine.

Ning, Ana M. “How ‘alternative’ is CAM? Rethinking conventional dichotomies between biomedicine and complementary/alternative medicine.” Health 17.2 (2012): 135-158. Sage. Web. 29 Sept 2013.

Ning focuses primarily on examining and undermining widely-accepted approaches to the binary opposition between conventional and alternative medicine. By citing specific examples of how we traditionally view conventional medicine and alternative medicine and the presupposed differences between them, she illuminates how political and social factors are often more prevalent in medicine and science than society might initially recognize. In this way, she destroys the binary opposition, calling instead for a pluralistic view of health and healthcare.

Turner, Bryan S. “The end(s) of scientific medicine?” Foreward. The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social Context. Eds. Philip Tovey, et al. London: Routledge, 2004. xiii-xx. Print.

The book contains numerous essays on topics found within medicine and the debate between conventional and alternative practices, focusing primarily on the social, economic and political factors associated with the “mainstreaming” of alternative medicine. While I found the resource to be generally very helpful, there was not a lot in the book that called attention specifically to the rhetoric of medicine as I attempt to illuminate here in my project. Nevertheless, I found Turner’s overview of the debate in medicine especially useful.