Evidence-based practice disregarded.
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Publication:||Name: Kai Tiaki: Nursing New Zealand Publisher: New Zealand Nurses' Organisation Audience: Trade Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health; Health care industry Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 New Zealand Nurses' Organisation ISSN: 1173-2032|
|Issue:||Date: May, 2011 Source Volume: 17 Source Issue: 4|
I write in response to the article by Richard Harman "Is it
time to integrate medical and natural health care?" published in
your February issue (p26-27). I understand the need for Kai Nursing New
Zealand to publish varied and interesting articles, so appreciate why an
article on natural health is included. I do, however, have two
objections in relation to the article and the two follow-up letters in
last month's issue. Firstly, I support the opinions expressed by
Graham Sharpe and Siouxsie Wiles in regards to research and clinical
trials (April, letters, p4-5). Nursing emphasises evidence-based
practice, yet Richard Harman states that medical trials are
"inappropriate" for homeopathic remedies. Why is NZNO giving
an article that tries to contradict evidence-based practice any space in
its journal? I would expect more from NZNO.
My second objection is allowing Richard Harman more space to respond to the two letters. Are you going to allow Drs Sharpe and Wiles more space to carry on this debate if they choose? I also question whether the journal really is the forum for carrying out this debate.
Garth Edwards, RN,BN, Hastings
The co-editors reply: When letters are published critical of a previously published article, it is common practice and courtesy to give the author a right of reply. The letters' pages seem an eminently appropriate place to explore controversial nursing issues. We welcome continued debate on this and any other matter.
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|