Previously posted on ATS in thread 77028. Some people say that even when alternative medicine is proven wrong, we should not do anything against it. "If it doesn't work and it does no harm. Why don't we let people keep going to alternative practioners if they want to do that?" The problem is that usually there is harm. Some general arguments that apply to all disproven or unproven (and therefore to be regarded as wrong until proven otherwise) alternative medicine is that people will not seek convential treatment. This can worsen the disease. However, there are also cases where a pseudoscientific alternative treatment does the harm itself. Attachment therapy is one of those. The article The Etiology of a Social Epidemic gives a good synopsis of attachement therapy and its problems: There is no scientific evidence that attachment therapy works. There are conventional therapies that do work, but they take much longer than the time it takes attachment therapy to work, if we are to believe the proponents of attachment theory. The article Quackwatch: Be wary of attachment therapy ends with the following conclusion: Abuse and torture are the right words to use for attachment therapy. There has even been a case of a death caused by attachment therapy: the death of Candace Newmaker, Scientific American: Death by Theory: Until they prove that attachment therapy does work, it should be forbidden. In this case the decision is easy. But there are also other kinds of alternative therapy. I have a simple opinion: we should only allow treatments are scientifically proven to work. Is this too much to ask? If attachment therapy, homeopathy or any other kind of alternative medicine work, they will easily be proven to work and they will be used. If they are wrong, they will not be used and we keep our health system free of useless non-working treatments. More about attachment therapy: Advocates for Children in Therapy.