>> The Dialogue Forum Pluralism in Medicine (DPM) was founded in 2000 by the President of the German Medical Association to work with renowned doctors and scientists to address the traditional biases between mainstream medicine (conventional medicine) and complementary medicine through a sustained dialogue between proven representatives of different approaches to thought and practice overcome at eye level. In addition to conventional medicine, the medical approaches represented in the dialogue forum include anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, naturopathy and Chinese medicine (TCM). The concern and goal of the DPM is, in addition to separating the wheat from the chaff, to develop evidence-based integrative medicine as a prerequisite for fully orchestrated health care through which the individually different needs and preferences of citizens/patients can be better met.
However, integrative medicine by no means means arbitrariness (21). Methodologically, the question of the mutual complementary potential, but also the mutual exclusion of the different medical approaches, is pursued (22-24). Corresponding objectives are also pursued by the aforementioned medical institutions. A meticulous but unbiased analysis of the published evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy shows that the therapeutic effectiveness is well established by high-quality studies and 90% of the existing clinical studies would have to be ignored in order to conclude that homeopathy is ineffective (14). With regard to the additional designation of homeopathy awarded by the medical associations for licensed doctors, it can be seen that this regulation has proven itself for decades in terms of quality assurance and patient safety. In medical hands, homeopathy is an important part of integrative medicine, which combines the best of conventional medicine and medical homeopathy for the benefit of the patient.
Not surprisingly, the introduction of complementary medicine as a constitutional right in Switzerland was not communicated in the media. This has led to homeopathy, along with three other complementary medical methods, being offered as a mandatory service by health insurance companies in Switzerland and being taught at universities for all health professions (25). This decision was preceded not only by a referendum, but also by a double scientific evaluation (13). Contrary to claims that there are no studies in homeopathy, there are a number of them, although there is no institutional funding for homeopathy research.
In a fundamental article on medical professionalism and complementary medicine, signed by all members of the DPM and published in the “Deutsches Ärzteblatt” in 2010, it was shown that there is an equal obligation to scientificity for both conventional medicine and complementary medicine (26).
For several decades now, it has been recognized worldwide that fully orchestrated healthcare requires integrative medicine as a basis if it wants to meet the diverse and individually different needs of the population and also evidence-based medicine. The concept of integrative medicine is understood to mean a justified and therefore understandable coexistence of paradigms in the sense of different approaches to thinking and practice. In the USA, a definition of “integrative medicine” was published by the “Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine and Health”, of which over 60 leading medical faculties are members: “Integrative medicine and health reaffirms the importance of the relationship between practitioner and patient, focuses on the whole person, is informed by evidence, and makes use of all appropriate therapeutic and lifestyle approaches, healthcare professionals and disciplines to achieve optimal health and healing.” (27)1. For those involved, the term integrative medicine represents a model through which the partialities between the individual directions fade into the background in favor of an integration that is associated with an unbiased search for the best therapeutic approaches for the individual patient.
In Germany, at the end of 2015, there were approximately 121,000 practicing physicians spread across approximately 95,000 practices practicing complementary medicine, which means that half of the physicians had already integrated complementary medicine into their medical practice.
All those who are currently demanding, with an eschatological, i.e. end-time-minded, doggedness, the exclusion of complementary medicine from reimbursement by the cost bearers and a ban on homeopathy or the abolition of the additional term homeopathy confirm what has already been said by Thomas Kuhn (28, 29) and Ludwig Fleck ( 30) describes the dynamics of the privileging of one's own paradigm through state jurisprudence. However, in a secular state like Germany, i.e. independent of the church, the state is fundamentally forbidden, according to Section 5 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, from scientific judgement, in the sense of taking sides for a particular paradigm. This is also discussed in detail in the commentary on the Basic Law by Maunz et al. (31) pointed out: “Everyone who is active in science, research and teaching has – subject to the duty of loyalty in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law – a right to ward off any state interference in the process of obtaining and communicating scientific knowledge.” . Science forms an “area of personal and autonomous responsibility of the individual scientist, free from external control by the state”. In this respect, the state is constitutionally prohibited from privileging a particular scientific approach or a particular medical paradigm. Accordingly, on the occasion of the reorganization of pharmaceutical law within the framework of the Medicines Act (AMG 1976) passed in 1976, the responsible Bundestag committee took the view that “it cannot be the task of the legislature to establish a generally binding “statement of the law” in the case of controversially discussed scientific positions by unilaterally defining certain methods “scientific findings”, but rather to correspond to the scientific pluralism present in drug therapy in the area of approval” (32).
When the master of hermeneutic philosophy in Germany, Hans-Georg Gadamer, at the age of 100, was asked in a SPIEGEL interview on February 21, 2000 whether he could summarize the quintessence of his philosophy in one sentence, he replied: “The other could To be right". You don't have a conversation if the other person isn't right. In the dialogue forum we have modified this sentence: “The other person could also be right” (23).
However, a mono-paradigmatic reductionism - whether considered or not - always ultimately leads to a totalitarian ideology, for which dogmatic ideology means everything, respect for the citizen's right to decide for themselves and respect for human dignity and the individual striving for knowledge means nothing. Do we want such a development in our country that is characterized by totalitarian structures for medicine and healthcare?
We, the members of the Dialogue Forum Pluralism in Medicine (DPM) and the undersigned doctors and scientists, will continue to work vigorously to maintain and further develop a science and value-based medicine as the basis of a free and democratic healthcare system in which personal responsibility is exercised Taking into account the common good, health care can be provided that takes into account the individually different needs and preferences of the citizen or patient in a critical assessment of benefits (33). We therefore resolutely oppose totalitarian thought structures and claims to power that conflict constitutionally with the Basic Law, such as those underlying the abolition of the additional term homeopathy now demanded by the “Münster Circle”. <<

Co-signer:
Cornelia Bajic
PD Dr. rer. nat. Stephan Baumgartner
Dr. med. Thomas Breitkreuz
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dirk Cysarz
Prof. Dr. med. Gabriele Fischer
Prof. Dr. med. Michael Frass
Dr. med. Michaela Geiger
Dr. med. Matthias Girke
PD Dr. med. Florian Glaser
Prof. Dr. med. Eckhart Hahn
Prof. Dr. med. Uwe an der Heiden
Sigrid Heinze
PD Dr. med. Dominik Irnich
Prof. Dr. med. Michael Keusgen
Prof. Dr. med. Karin Kraft
Dr. med. John Krebs
Prof. Dr. med. Alfred Längler
Prof. Dr. med. David Martin
Prof. Dr. med. Harald Matthes
Prof. Dr. Christoph Müller-Busch
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Punnek
Dr. med. Stefan Schmidt Troschke
Dr. med. Klaus of Ammon
Prof. Dr. med. Matthias Wildermuth
Prof. Dr. med. Kurt Zänker

Correspondence address:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Peter F. Matthiessen
Chairman of the speaker group of the Dialogue Forum Pluralism in Medicine (DPM), head of the Method Plurality in Medicine working group at the Institute for Integrative Medicine (IfIM) and holder of the Gerhard Kienle Chair for Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine at the University of Witten/Herdecke gGmbH
Eh. Lead physician in the psychiatric model department for adolescents and young adults at the Herdecke Community Hospital
Gerhard-Kienle-Weg 4, D-58313 Herdecke
Email: [email protected]