Involving Voters and Consumers in Decision-Making about the Health Care System – The Swiss Case: A Review

Abstract

Background: Behind the principle of involving users and voters directly in decision-making about the health care system are ideas relating to empowerment. This implies a challenge to the traditional view that scientific knowledge is generally believed to be of higher value than empirical knowledge, as it is the case with CAM. The objectives of this review are (a) to show that this assumption disregards the fact that CAM is as scientific as conventional medicine but has different basic assumptions what the world is being made of and consequently uses different/adapted scientific methods; (b) to demonstrate how a perspective of the history of medicine and science as well as direct democracy mechanisms such as stipulated in the Swiss constitution can be used to achieve the acceptance of CAM in a modern medical health care system. A public health care system financed by levies from the population should also reflect the widely documented desire in the population for medical pluralism (provided that therapeutical alternatives are not risky). Otherwise, the problem of social inequality arises because only people with a good financial background can afford this medicine. Summary: From the perspective of scientific theory and the history of science, the answer to the question of whether complementary medicine and conventional medical procedures must provide proof of efficacy according to a uniform scientific is quite controversial according to epistemologically oriented studies on this issue. Key Messages: This review found strong evidence for involving voters and consumers directly in decision-making about the provision of CAM in the health care system. It also seems necessary to step back in the debate on evidence-based medicine, taking a history of medicine and science perspective, as the role which the proper method occupies and plays in medicine is defined by the scientific nature of the world view.