Fwd: How dangerous is conventional medicine?

[Guest guest]

"Cathy B." <childofparadise wrote:

Alternative Medicine Forum "Cathy B." Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:41:58 -0700 (PDT) How dangerous is conventional medicine?This is an article from The South African Journal of Natural Medicine:-Dr Bernard Brom - Editor MB ChB (UCT), CEDH (France), Dip Acup -As a medical doctor I am constantly aware of the incredible benefits of modern medicine. At thesame time I am very conscious of my responsibility to ensure that my patients understand the risksinvolved. These risks are not to be underestimated. While doctor-induced disease (iatrogenicdisorder) is generally regarded as the fourth most common cause of ill health after cancer, heartdisease and stroke, some recent evidence suggests that it is even higher up on the

list and may infact be the most common cause of ill health. While doctors generally like to remind everyone thatthe benefits are worth the risks, they themselves are generally not the greatest patients andavoid investigations and surgery whenever possible. -Iatrogenic disorder is defined in Taber's medical dictionary as 'any adverse mental or physicalcondition induced in a patient by effects of treatment by a physician or surgeon'. The termimplies that such effects could have been avoided by proper and judicious care on the part of thephysician, surgeon or dentist. Most of the figures quoted come from the USA and tend to be veryconservative. It has been suggested that only about 5 - 20% of iatrogenic incidents are recorded.This is not surprising because of medico-legal implications. -Hospitals tend to downplay the incidence and doctors and staff generally don't like to report whensomething goes wrong due to improper handling.

Iatrogenic disorders include diagnostic errors,drug-related events, surgical mishaps, investigational procedures that go wrong because of poortechnique, hospital infections that could have been prevented, and poor nursing procedures. -According to one source the number of people killed by iatrogenic events is in the order of over 700 000 every year, making it thenumber one killer in America. While these figures may seem shocking they should not reallysurprise anyone. In recent years, for example, there has been a steady and progressive increase incaesarian section delivery worldwide; in the USA the rate has increased from 5.5% in the 1970s to21% in 2000. With this increase comes an increase in complications, including maternal death. InSouth Africa the caesarian section rate in the public sector is between 10% and 20% depending onthe area, while in the private sector the rate is over 50% in some areas. This high rate in theprivate

sector is not only due to pressure from gynaecologists, but also pressure from mothers whowould prefer the easier way no matter what the risk. There are more maternal deaths from caesariansection delivery (9/100 000) than from vaginal births (2/100 000). -The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually in America is 7.5million, and the number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalisation annually is 8.9 million.A JAMA study published in 2003 on surgically related complications and deaths reported 32 000deaths costing $9 billion and accounting for 2.4 million extra days in hospitals in 2000.1 -One can easily understand therefore why the rate of iatrogenic conditions has increased and willcontinue to increase. The truth is that everyone has his or her own bias. If one has a hammer inone's hand one tends to see nails everywhere. Surgeons will always be biased towards surgery,gynaecologists towards

caesarian sections, oncologists towards chemo-therapy, dermatologiststowards cortisone creams, etc. In addition, clinical decision making is often difficult, whichmakes it easy to move the patient in the direction of one's bias. This difficulty also accountsfor the wide difference in 'expert opinions'. In one study, expert opinions on colon cancerscreening varied from 5% to 95%, and specialist opinions on outcomes in their own field varied byup to 100%.2 -In his introduction to Limits to Medicine published in 1976, Ivan Illich was already saying: 'Themedical establishment has become a major threat to health. The disabling impact of professionalcontrol over medicine has reached the proportions of an epidemic'.3 Thomas McKeown, EmeritusProfessor of Social Medicine Emeritus at the University of Birmingham in England, stated: 'Doctorshave always tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their intervention and to

underestimatethe risks'. 4 -The public may well ask what is going on. It appears that there is a real conflict of interestsoccuring across the board. Too many investigators and scientists are directly or indirectly beingpaid by the huge pharmaceutical industry. This vast industry is big business and spends increasingamounts of money on advertising, research and ensuring that there is a return on their investment.Trials sponsored by drug companies are more likely to report favourably on the treatment beingtested. Stelfox and associates5 reviewed 70 articles on the safety of a particular drug:publications where there was financial relationship with the drug manufacturers showed 96%support, while in publications without this association there was only 60% and 30% support. -These wide differences are generally the rule, i.e. if the incentive towards getting particularresults is strong enough then scientists generally tend to get the

results they would like to seeand they tend to remember the statistics that support their own world view. Any patient who hassought more than one second opinion will be aware of the enormous difference that can be presentbetween one specialist and another. -Individuals need to understand that medicine is much more of an art than a science. Sir WilliamOsler, the great physician of half a century ago asserted: 'The practice of medicine is an art,based on science. Working with science, for science, it has not reached, perhaps never will, thedignity of a complete science, with exact laws, like astronomy or engineering. Is there no scienceof medicine? Yes, but in parts only, such as anatomy and physiology'. 6 -Knowing this and with information related to the iatrogenic problems of medicine it becomesimportant that every potential patient and everyone moving through the corridors of conventionalmedicine take responsibility for the

way their ill health is managed. It really is not good enoughto hand oneself over to the care of a doctor expecting him or her to serve your higher good. Thisis not because the doctor is evil, but only because of his or her bias, narrow perspective, andreliance on information that is shaped by the pressures of sponsoring companies. -I am surprised at how often people will allow their doctor to give them injections without findingout exactly what the doctor is giving and what the possible side-effects may be. I am equallysurprised that many surgeons do not give patients sufficient information on what they plan to doduring the operation and what the risks really are. An example is the hysterectomy. Gynaecologistsoften remove the ovaries as well as the uterus without informing the woman that the former will beremoved. Similarly, women are often not informed that removal of the uterus can cut the bloodsupply to the ovaries so that hormone

replacement will become necessary. -Of course doctors are not the only ones responsible for the increasing level of iatrogenic illhealth. Where people in earlier times took responsibility for their own health and also had themeans and knowledge to deal with many simple daily conditions, we have what Ivan Illich called the'medicalisation' of life. Today the general public has been imbued with fear so that everytemperature in a child must be dealt with at least by the general practitioner, (although oftenonly the specialist is good enough), every baby must receive a range of vaccinations that keepincreasing from year to year, and all the elderly and now even the healthy young are told thatthey should receive influenza vaccinations. It is the norm now for all deliveries to be done inhospital, and to avoid pain a caesarian section is often considered preferable to home delivery bya midwife. We are led to believe that sick people are better off

in hospital than at home, thatinvestigations are safe and that generally it is better to have them than not. -This thinking on the part of the public has contributed to the increasing incidence of iatrogenicdisease. Doctors are increasingly being warned not to give medication for every temperature, andhome deliveries by midwives are the rule in Holland and other countries. Apart from some clear-cutexceptions, hospitalisation may not be the better option, especially with the increasing incidenceof antibiotic-resistant organisms and the danger attached to many investigations. -In the end each person must have the information required to make an informed decision. This isnot easy because of the way that conventional medicine has managed to disempower people and createthe illusion of a medicine based on scientific facts, and the belief that every illness willeventually be beaten into submission. The real facts are that there are limits to

science, andthat in dealing with living systems and in particular dealing with individual human beings,medicine becomes less of a science and more an art. It is in this realm of art that the doctorneeds far more humility and patients need much greater awareness in order to avoid the pitfalls ofa medical system that is still in its adolescence, while behaving as if it is all-powerful. -Conventional medicine claims to have all the answers, but the statistics mentioned at thebeginning of this article do not support this.-References 1. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medicalinjuries during hospitalization. JAMA 2003; 290: 1868-1874. 2. Parr G. Screening for cancer in general practice. CME 1998; 7: 380. 3. Illich I. Limits to Medicine. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1989: 11. 4. McKeown T. The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity

Press, 1979. 5. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict in interest in the debate overcalcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 101-106. 6. Osler W. Aequanimitas and Other Addresses. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1932.-This article appeared in issue 13http://www.naturalmedicine.co.za/sajnm_main/article.php?story=20040507111211887 Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.http://messenger./ Please pass this message or article on to someone else so that they may learn also.Community Newsletters.http://www.alternative-medicine-newsletter.infoCommunity Message Boards.http://www.alternative-medicine-message-boards.info"Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians mislead you. Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions about how to live a happy life and how to work for a better world." - Linus PaulingGetting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health and well being..list or archives: :........ - post:............. alternative_Medicine_Forum digest form:...... -digest individual emails:

-normal no email:......... -nomail moderator:........ -owner unsubscribe:...... -

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger