WHY DOES IT MATTER IF CAM IS RELIGIOUS (AND NOT CHRISTIAN)—EVEN IF IT WORKS?
The conclusion considers biomedical ethics, tort law, and constitutional law. CAM providers use camouflage or self-censorship to avoid offense, and pragmatic consumers fail to ask questions, compromising personal autonomy and self-determination, impeding informed decision-making requisite for economic and political health of American democracy. The physician-patient relationship and imbalanced knowledge and power give providers ethical and legal disclosure obligations, under battery and negligence theories of informed consent, if providers suspect CAM may offend patient values or influence religious decisions. Populations vulnerable to manipulation or abuse—desperately ill, elderly, and children—are injured when fraud, deception, or misrepresentations induce choices incongruent with long-range goals, since practicing CAM changes religious reliefs. Direct government funding and sponsoring yoga or meditation in public schools distributes discriminatory benefits and burdens, endorsing religion above irreligion and certain religions above others, contrary to Supreme Court values of religious equality and religious voluntarism in First Amendment establishment clause cases.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.