Gary Easthope BA, MA, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-17, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Tel.: +613 6226 2355; Fax: +613 6226 2279; E-mail: Gary.Easthope@utas.edu.au Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2000), 8, 226–233 © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd INTRODUCTION The empirical study of complementary medicine has advanced since Ursula Sharma wrote ‘a tradi- tion of studying the politically marginal and cultural “underdogs”, strong among qualitative sociologists and some anthropologists, favours gravitation toward the end of the alternative spectrum which appears most “exotic”.’ 1 One index of this advance is the move toward calling such therapeutic prac- tices complementary rather than alternative, a move favoured by many doctors as well as most alterna- tive practitioners. 2 Another index is the increasing evidence of use of complementary therapies by doctors. 3,4 This evidence demonstrates that many therapeutic practices once dismissed as quacker are now being incorporated into medical practic Such incorporation may be direct, as is the case wit acupuncture in Australia where it is used exten sively. 5,6 Alternatively it may be indirect, with doc- tors referring patients to other practitioners, bo medical and non-medical, for complementary thera- pies. 3,4,7–10 In Australia complementary therapies have, in the last 20 years, become accepted by the general public with spending on such therapies in 1993 standing at A$309 million per annum, which is only slightly less thanthe contribution patients made for pharmaceutical drugs in the same year of A$360. 11 Normal medical practice of referring patients for complementary therapies among Australian general practitioners G. Easthope, 1 B.Tranter, 1 G. Gill 2 1 School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania 2 Discipline of General Practice, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania SUMMARY. Objectives: Assessing the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) accept complementary therapies as normal medical practice. Design: An examina of two Australian surveys of GPs undertaken in Tasmania and Victoria in 1997. Outcome Measures: Type of referral (to doctors or non-medical therapists) and therapy. Levels of acceptance. Basis for judgement of acceptability. Results: In Ta 66% of GPs referred patients to doctors – primarily for acupuncture and hypnothe Fifty-five per cent referred patients to non-medical practitioners – primarily for chiropractic, massage and osteopathy. In Victoria the rate of referral was 93%. M GPs accepted acupuncture as a normal, but not orthodox, therapy. There are vary levels of acceptance of other complementary therapies and GPs judge by assessin safety and therapeutic value. Conclusion: Some complementary therapies are cle part of normal, if not orthodox, practice in Australia. Discussion of complementar therapies in medicine must consider the differential levels of acceptance of differ therapies. © 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd 226 Original research