The ‘Münster Circle’ (Münsteraner Kreis) is an informal association of multi-disciplinary experts who aim at critically examining issues in and around so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). We have existed since June 2016 and are the result of an initiative by Dr Bettina Schöne-Seifert, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Münster, Germany.
In the past, we met a few times in person and numerous times online. In this way, we generated and published several documents which proved to be influential in stimulating discussions on SCAM-related subjects:
- March 2022: Münster Memorandum Science-Oriented Medicine. Here we address the claim of modern academic medicine to be able to explain and empirically prove the prospects of success of its treatment measures according to the respective state of scientific knowledge. This memorandum is intended to set out the aims and basic concepts of Science-Oriented Medicine in the light of the Covid 19 pandemic.
- April 2021: Homeopathy – 10 language confusions. A handout in which we draw attention to phraseology that has become widespread in common usage and is used even in media critical of homeopathy, but which originates from the promotion of homeopathy. Our aim is to offer alternatives to this confusing phraseology.
- March 2018: Münster Memorandum on Homeopathy. Here we call for the abolition of the title of homeopathy for German physicians. German Medical Associations award this additional title to doctors who provide evidence of appropriate further training. This gives the esoteric healing theory of homeopathy a veneer of respectability that it does not deserve.
- August 2017: Münster Memorandum Heilpraktiker. In this document, we suggest an abolition or fundamental reform of the German Heilpraktiker profession.
Our most recent document was published in October 2022: the ‘Memorandum Integrative Medicine‘. It is a critical analysis of this subject and will hopefully make some waves in Germany and beyond. Here is its English summary:
The merging of alternative medicine and conventional medicine has been increasingly referred to as Integrative (or Integrated) Medicine (IM) since the 1990s and has largely replaced other terms in this field. Today, IM is represented at all levels.
IM is often characterised with the thesis of the ‘best of both worlds’. However, there is no generally accepted definition of IM. Common descriptions of IM emphasise:
- the combination of conventional and complementary methods,
- the holistic understanding of medicine,
- the great importance of the doctor-patient relationship,
- the hope for optimal therapeutic success,
- the focus on the patient,
- the high value of experiential knowledge.
On closer inspection, the descriptions of IM show numerous inconsistencies. For example, medicine in the hands of doctors is stressed, but it is also emphasised that all relevant professions would be involved. Scientific evidence is emphasised, but at the same time, it is stressed that IM itself includes homeopathy as well as other unsubstantiated treatments and is only ‘guided’ by evidence, i.e. not really evidence-based. It is claimed that IM is to be understood as ‘complementary to science-based medicine’; however, this implies that IM itself is not science-based.
The ‘best of both worlds’ thesis impresses many. However, if one investigates what is meant by ‘best’, one finds that this term is not interpreted in nearly the same way as in conventional medicine. Many claims of IM are elementary components of all good medicine and thus cannot be counted among the characterising features of IM. Finally, it is hard to ignore the fact that the supporters of IM use it as a pretext to introduce unproven or disproven modalities into conventional medicine. Contrary to promises, IM has no discernible potential to improve medicine; rather, it creates confusion and entails considerable dangers. This cannot be in the interest of patients.
Against this background, it must be demanded that IM is critically scrutinised at all levels. The Münster Circle appeals in particular:
- to universities and medical faculties to promote the critical examination of IM and its misleading promises, to stop standing idly by and watch its spread, and to examine IM initiatives more carefully and boldly;
- to journalists, media and publishers to confront IM and its supposed attractiveness with informed scepticism, to name direct and indirect dangers and thus to contribute to responsible risk communication;
- to decision-makers in healthcare to be aware of the danger of introducing unproven or disproven alternative procedures and not to promote ineffective and dangerous parallel structures in science-oriented medicine.
