Validating well formed xml c
Validating well formed xml c - dating in scotland friend
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This paper examines the (in)compatibility between the diagnostic and therapeutic theories of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and a science-based regulatory framework.
The paper evaluates competing theories for validating CAM ranging from the RCT methodology to anthropological perspectives and contends that while the RCT method might be beneficial in the regulation of many CAM therapies, yet dogmatic adherence to this paradigm as the exclusive method for legitimizing CAM will be adverse to the independent development of many CAM therapies whose philosophies and mechanisms of action are not scientifically interpretable.Commentators suggest that the state has legitimated decisions based on scientific judgments; in these cases, “scientific judgments glide into normative judgments” [1, 3].There is little wonder that many policy decisions are increasingly being founded on scientific evidence, especially when the decision to be made concerns clinical practice guidelines that focus on specific individual treatments .In the legitimization of new or pre-existing health systems, this new standard narrative has not been different.In the regulation of the paradigm known in Western communities as “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, state law must decide between competing versions of reality—the scientific (generated by a biomedically-based Randomized Clinical Trial) and the clinical (generated through diverse nonbiomedical methods) and reported by ardent health consumers.Complementary and Alternative Medicine (“CAM”) is an inconvenient reality in today’s medical practice.
Its gradual re-emergence and prevalence in biomedical and scholarly discourse has generated controversies regarding the issues of safety and cost effectiveness, and the basis for which the state should grant legitimacy to CAM.A recurrent inquiry is whether CAM can be scientifically validated.Drawing on history and research evidence to support this argument, the paper sues for a regulatory model that is accommodative of different evidential paradigms in support of a pluralistic healthcare system that balances the imperative of quality assurance with the need to ensure access.States increasingly exercise their power to regulate affairs under their territories and determine the thresholds of societal expectations in accordance with the best available evidence.In the healthcare domain, there is increasing focus on evidence-based healthcare delivery, which involves the utilization of the presumed rationality of science  in healthcare management and professional regulation .State law’s espousal of science and the “circulation of meaning between science and law” have been denoted as central features of modernity .