ABSTRACT
While the sociological analysis of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) remains essentially under-developed, issues surrounding professional action and professionalisation have received perhaps as much, if not more, attention than many others (see Boon et al. Chapter 7). In this section of the book (Part II) we have seen evidence of this through discussion of philosophical boundaries, the professionalisation of CAM practitioners, and finally the appropriation of CAM by practitioners within orthodoxy. Indeed, when attention has been centred on orthodox professions, medicine, and in particular general practice, has tended to be the pivotal point of reference (Eastwood 2000; Pirotta et al. 2000; Adams 2001). This is perhaps surprising in view of the evidence that it is another profession – nursing – that is actually at the forefront of integration (House of Lords 2000). To date, writings on the interaction, or apparent affinity, between nursing and CAM have been mainly produced by advocates of that integration (Rankin-Box 1995). Consequently, the appropriateness of continuing integration is frequently presented as a taken-for-granted assumption (Tiran and Mack 2000; McCabe 2001) and potentially problematic issues (about, for instance, professional motivation and purpose) are avoided (Kuhn 1999). In this chapter we suggest a framework for subjecting the CAM-nursing relationship to a critical sociological analysis. We take the UK as our primary point of reference. However, the issues raised are likely to be of relevance – albeit in modified forms – throughout late modern societies.
