When considering the health disparities that exist due to gaps in socioeconomic status the advantage of incorporating ethnobotanical treatments in patient treatment plans is more apparent. Hesitancy is unavoidable because of the lack of research so it is my belief that setting up IRB approved clinical research trials that assess the clinical results of traditional treatment versus ethnobotanicall treatment is key to obtaining the necessary evidence of the effectiveness of ethnobotanical treatment. I do realize that there is an ethical dilemma in providing an alternative treatment when a known effective treatment is available; however, I also realize that traditional treatment is not always accessible due to the financial status of patients. I can appreciate that providing an alternative treatment, which is likely to be less costly, will provide some patients with a chance of better health outcomes because they are more likely to obtain the alternative treatment due to it being more feasible to purchase when considering their financial status. Based on this scenario I would lean towards clinical research trials being established and the results being analyzed to provide evidence to incorporate ethnobotanical treatment in the treatment of Chagas disease in Costa Rica.
Researchers have mentioned their concern of ethnobotanical research and the population that it impacts. Balick and Cox (1997) report "Ethnobotanical research should not be limited to discovering new pharmaceuticals for Westerners; it can also be of some benefit to peoples in developing countries." What would be a means of ensuring that people of developing countries, and sometimes with the greatest need for the alternative treatment, receive the benefits of ethnobotanical research?
