Modern medicine and ethics.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Whether modern medicine is ethical or suffers from tunnel vision can be best

judged by the following article by a group of Australian holistic health

practitioners. The doctors finally come to the conclusion that modern medicine

is nothing but scientific quackery, a view today proactively shared by

approximately 50% of the worlds population, the half that prefer to go to

alternate practitioners for their health and well being solutions.

 

This subject is very important for us because only people with healthy bodies

and minds can do the Lords work on the earth plane. I am usually spirited on

this topic because within the next few years the bubble is set to burst and only

those acutely aware of the crisis can extricate themselves from a very awkward

situation.

 

When senior monks of our Order like Swamis' Jitatmanandaji, Gautamanandaji,

Tyaganandaji are speaking out against the horrors of modern medicine I think we

should stop, listen and ponder.

 

Regards, Jagannath.

 

IATROGENIC DISEASES - HOSPITALS OR KILLING FIELDS? www.holistichealthtopics.com

 

The risk of being permanently harmed or even killed, by orthodox medicine is

very real. In fact, the rise of reductionist medicine has brought with it a

brand new group of diseases termed "iatrogenic" or doctor caused diseases while

adverse drug reactions outnumber herb reactions by more than 99 to 1 . According

to medical authorities iatrogenic disease is responsible for 180,000 or as many

as 250,000 deaths annually in the US alone. Even the more conservative

estimates suggest that American doctors are responsible for 80,000 - 100,000

deaths every year . It is claimed that doctors are the third leading cause of

death in the US . In addition, more than 2 million Americans may be "seriously

injured" by medical treatments every year and there are 10 million cases of

adverse reactions to drugs every year .

 

The situation is very similar in Australia where medical authorities claim that

orthodox medicine kills from 10,000 - 19,000 people , and permanently injures

25,000 - 50,000 people, annually . Additionally, more than 80,000 Australians

are admitted to hospital each year because of "bad reactions to medication" .

Australian medical authorities have also estimated that as many as 40% of

medical patients may be victims of iatrogenic diseases . It has been claimed

that almost one in five deaths in Australia may be due to medical treatments .

In fact, since iatrogenic diseases are responsible for 10,000 - 19000 deaths

annually, Australian statistics reveal that medical mishaps are the third

leading cause of death behind cardiovascular disease and cancer . Iatrogenic

diseases are responsible for more deaths than strokes . These alarming facts are

usually omitted in normal statistics which tend to give iatrogenic diseases an

extremely low visibility . In fact the priority given to this

matter in the recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

suggests that it is officially regarded as being largely irrelevant.

 

Medical mishaps do not just occur in a hospital environment, they are also

exceedingly common in general practice . In spite of the "low volunteer rate" ,

30 deaths were reported to occur from 805 incidents involving 324 GP's .

Interestingly, GP's reported that the main factor in minimising the chance of

long term harm resulting from these medical mishaps was simply "good fortune" .

In fact, positive outcomes were due to the combined effects of "good fortune",

and the "good physical or psychological condition of the patient" in 43 cases

out of 100 . It is also interesting to note that "diagnostic incidents had the

most serious outcomes" , a fact which is of vital importance given the inability

of GP's to diagnose diseases such as hypothyroidism..

 

Interestingly, in Australia, medical authorities have recently reacted to these

alarming figures by moves to introduce retraining of doctors, not in the area of

their professional skills and competency, but rather in the area of

communication skills . It is hoped that this will enable doctors to be more

effective in saying "sorry" to patients and thereby avoid litigation for medical

mistakes , a confession perhaps that the hazardous nature of interventionist

medicine is inevitable. While the fundamental concern of medicine has

traditionally been to do no harm, now it seems that medicine is more concerned

about avoiding litigation. Instead of accepting responsibility for the hazardous

nature of modern medicine and proposing fundamental changes to reduce costs by

reducing these hazards, the Australian Medical Association has even claimed that

patients should have no right to sue their doctors. According to Dr Kerryn

Phelps : "As a community we need to put an end to the notion that

patients have the basic right to sue their doctors. That does not appear in any

human rights charter." If doctors are concerned about litigation then they

should address the cause of the problem and return to a form of medicine that

does not kill people.

 

In the US, 100,000 people die annually because of adverse reactions to

prescription drugs making such drugs the sixth leading cause of death. These

deaths are not caused primarily by medical mistakes, but rather, by the inherent

toxicity of prescription drugs . Amazingly, one study has apparently found that

as many as 51% of new cases of Parkinson's disease are due to prescribed drugs.

 

Although these figures are cause for grave concern, it seems that this is only

the tip of the iceberg since most cases of adverse reactions to prescription

drugs go unreported . Medical experts estimate that only 1 - 10% of cases are

actually reported . In Australia the reporting of adverse drug reactions is

voluntary and most doctors choose not to report adverse reactions to their

treatments . An additional problem here is that death certificates are not

necessarily required to state that death was caused by an adverse drug reaction

.. Similarly, in the US, where more than 1 million hospital patients experience

"adverse events" every year , "silence" surrounds this issue due to the desire

of health authorities not to publicise adverse events or iatrogenic illnesses .

 

Furthermore, it seems that the person who suffers from an iatrogenic disease may

also develop a second iatrogenic disease as a result of medical treatment for

the original iatrogenic disease . This has been termed "second level

iatrogenesis" . In view of these facts it is not surprising that the incidence

of iatrogenic diseases is increasing alarmingly, so much so that it has been

described as "epidemic" . Given this background, it is hardly surprising that

medical complaints from patients are also increasing alarmingly .

 

Adverse reactions to prescription drugs are only one part of the iatrogenic

potential of modern medicine . Surgical procedures, including back operations,

prostatectomy, and even keyhole surgery, are hazardous procedures which may do

more harm than good . Additionally, much of this surgery, like drug therapy, is

not even necessary . Even diagnostic tests such as X-rays and CAT scans may pose

significant health risks, medical authorities estimating that the use of such

procedures may cause as many as 300 annual deaths from radiation in Australia

alone . To make matters even worse, the use of sophisticated X-ray technology

such as MRI scans, frequently detects problems in normal persons where none

exists ( 20, 82 ). For instance, in 30% of normal patients who had back scans ,

and 100% of normal patients who had scans of the shoulders , definite problems

were falsely diagnosed.

 

Recently the shocking consequences of toxic dyes or contrast mediums used during

some X-ray procedures has been increasingly reported . In Australia this dye was

used for more than 40 years even though the government and health authorities

were well aware that this toxic compound may cause adhesive arachnoiditis even

as long as 10 years later , facts which were deliberately concealed from

patients . The chemical concerned, which contained hydrochloric acid, sulphuric

acid and benzene was apparently so caustic that it would even destroy rubber and

dissolve polystyrene cups upon contact . In view of these facts it is hardly

surprising that the dye had "horrendous" effects including severe back pain,

visual problems, paralysis, vertigo and bladder problems . Nevertheless, the

continuing use of this toxic compound was justified by health authorities on the

basis that the benefits outweighed the risks!! It is hardly surprising that the

Australian Medical Association wishes to remove the

right of patients to sue their doctors.

 

These deplorable facts are the result of a medical system which expresses little

interest in the whole truth, and they are perpetuated by an attitude of

acceptance and dismissiveness. Amazingly, it is not unusual for health

authorities to express more concern about one minor adverse reaction to a herbal

medicine than about the thousands who die annually from medical treatments.

There is it seems, very little concern or compassion for those who suffer

needlessly from medical treatments. This contrasts remarkably with the

considerable degree of community concern and compassion which is appropriately

shown for the much smaller number of people who die annually as a result of road

traffic accidents ( 1,825 in Australia in 2000 ).

 

In America also, deaths from medical mistakes exceed those from motor vehicle

accidents . In fact, according to Kohn et al , "the risk of dying as a result of

medical errors far surpasses the risk of dying in an airline accident." Compared

to industries like the aviation industry, "health care is a decade or more

behind other high risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety" .

 

In view of the prevalence of iatrogenic diseases and the ill effects of

prescribed drugs it is interesting to note that medical practitioners commonly

suggest that patients will "become accustomed to" the adverse effects of many

medications as they continue to take them. In other words, the adverse effects

are worse during the initial stages of treatment but frequently lessen or

disappear with continued usage. Although doctors commonly acknowledge the

occurrence of this phenomena, they are not so forthcoming regarding the precise

mechanism behind this lessening of adverse effects. To do so, they first need to

explain the mechanism behind the occurrence of adverse reactions in the first

place. With the possible exception of allergic or local irritant effects, it

would seem that most side effects are merely manifestations of the toxicity of

the drug/s concerned.

 

According to traditional herbal and naturopathic beliefs, elimination of toxins

by the body is characterised initially by a stage of acute symptoms as the cells

of the body become stimulated and overactive in an attempt to detoxify the body.

This acute stage cannot be maintained however, and continued exposure to the

toxin causes the cells to become overwhelmed, at which point there is a

reduction or cessation of symptoms as the toxaemia becomes suppressed and

chronic. From this point of view, the adverse effects of drugs may be merely

symptoms of the body's attempts to detoxify or eliminate the toxin from the

body. Is this the mechanism behind the body becoming accustomed to drugs? It is

indeed interesting to note that doctors often have a rather different attitude

when it comes to adverse reactions to herbal treatments. I have never heard a

doctor suggest that patients should ignore any side effects of herbal medicines

because they will ultimately get used to them.

 

If we are at all serious about health we must seek to understand the causative

mechanisms behind the appearance of adverse effects. It is unscientific in the

extreme to adopt the attitude "out of sight out of mind", although, sadly, such

an attitude is probably characteristic of modern science and medicine. We either

see the body's warning system as something to be thwarted and overcome, or as

something which should be acknowledged and supported.

 

The facts regarding the dangerous nature of orthodox medicine are quite clear.

In the words of Moynihan : "there is a view slowly gaining strength worldwide

that the inappropriate use of medical treatments and technologies has become a

major threat to public health." What is not so clear is why this situation is

permitted to continue.

 

Perhaps this matter has been most appropriately summarised by Chassin :

"The burden of harm conveyed by the collective impact of all our health care

quality problems is staggering. It requires the urgent attention of all the

stakeholders: the health care professions, health care policymakers, consumer

advocates and purchasers of care. The challenge is to bring the full potential

benefits of effective health care to all Americans while avoiding unneeded and

harmful interventions and eliminating preventable complications of care. Meeting

this challenge demands a readiness to think in radically new ways about how to

deliver health care services and how to assess and improve their quality. Our

present efforts resemble a team of engineers trying to break the sound barrier

by tinkering with a Model T Ford. The only unacceptable alternative is not to

change."

 

The determination and energy with which authorities seek to correct this matter

is clearly proportional to their level of concern. Interestingly, some medical

authorities tend to dismiss any concern on the basis that many patients were

seriously ill before they were medically treated and medical hazards are

inevitable anyhow! There is also a code of silence within modern medicine about

medical mistakes and iatrogenic illness and even in the media coverage is

usually limited to occasional anecdotal reports . It is a matter which is only

discussed "behind closed doors" .

 

Of vital importance here is the fact that doctors apparently regard their

professional reputation as being more important than the welfare, or perhaps

even the lives, of their patients. According to Leape , doctors are "reluctant

to admit and address the problem of errors, both because of feelings of guilt

and from the desire to avoid punishment or disapproval by colleagues." This has

been confirmed by Makeham and coworkers and also Kidd and Veale . According to

Kidd and Veale , "the current system does not assist individual practitioners to

express concerns about errors they witness or make as, in the main, peer support

is lacking when adverse events occur in general practice."

 

It is difficult indeed to understand how qualities such as honesty, integrity,

and genuine compassion and concern for the welfare of patients could be regarded

by doctors as being undesirable or even punishable. Why would any doctor wish to

"punish" a colleague who expresses an allegiance to his/her patient by openly

admitting responsibility for a medical error? How could any doctor have more

concern about punishment from their colleagues than the welfare of their

patients? Such honesty, integrity, and compassion, should surely be much lauded

and envied by medical colleagues. Accepting responsibility is commonly the basis

of learning. These are the fundamental qualities which form the foundations for

excellence in medical practice. They are certainly not to be despised and

punished. The suggestion that medical errors remain unreported because of fear

of punishment by colleagues indicates that many doctors have adopted a system of

values, priorities and ethics which is fundamentally

inconsistent with care of patients and the practice of medicine. This needs to

be addressed urgently at all levels of medicine, particularly medical training.

Unless responsibility to patients comes first, our health care system has a very

dismal future.

 

Closed doors must be opened and interests of patients must be paramount if we

are to move forward. It is "simply not acceptable for patients to be harmed by

the same health care system that is supposed to be offering healing and comfort"

..