The issue of alternative spaces of care has been an interesting topic of research. The exploration into the area has shown the vast array of methods of care out there and how each has its own advantages and disadvantages. From my own interpretation of alternative spaces of care, I think it would be wrong to disregard any area, especially in significant illnesses. This study looked at home care, complementary medicine and therapeutic landscapes as alternatives to the conventional, or traditional, means of healthcare which we have become so accustomed to in our lives and consider being the norm. These alternative methods should be looked at with an open mind and careful consideration for anyone unfortunate enough to require healthcare for them or a loved one.
In the issue of home care, there are many advantages and disadvantages to it. The lack of, or issue of, twenty-four-hour care is indeed a major one. This can be rectified with the introduction of more than one carer, but this can be similar to being in a nursing home; with several people caring for the patient. The main advantage of home care is the accessibility. The patient is in familiar, accessible surroundings and the family know they can visit at any time. Traditionally, social scientists and policymakers have tended to view the home as the best place for older people in sickness and in health (http://www.tudelft.nl/live/binaries/2e2a5b07-3f77-4d71-b1d1-33a897e794aa/doc/Conference%20paper%20Martin.pdf). This view compliments the view of Godkin, Milligan and Twigg (2000), who state that the traditional care methods of hospitals, hospices and nursing homes are seen to “alienating environments” for their patients. Some people, patients included, will be narrow minded about homecare; the patient not wanting to burden their family and the family fighting the issues of finance and freedom – professional care versus homecare. Homecare is one of the most important alternative methods of care due to the bond...