Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 two articles in the Irish Times... examining the bigger picture of medicine vs. medicine, allopathic vs. holistic. Kind regards Sepp <http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/health/2005/0927/2838202658HS27BIGPICTURE.html\ >http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/health/2005/0927/2838202658HS27BIGPICTURE.html <http://www.ireland.com> Saturday, October 08, 2005 <http://www.ireland.com/today.htm> Health Tue, Sep 27, 05 Opposing doctrines Shalini Sinha The bigger picture: There are many different philosophies, schools and practices for healing. There always have been, and should continue to be. No one perspective has a monopoly on care, insight, considered answers or evidence of success. Yet, an argument ensues suggesting that the overriding allopathic tradition (the practice of our GPs and doctors in hospitals) is " more right " and " distinctly better " , and that all other perspectives are foolhardy, even dangerous. Not only does the evidence not stack up, but attempts to dismiss different, yet credible, points of view is genuinely dangerous. Distortions in reality occur in many sectors of society. When such distortions are institutionally enforced, systematic inequalities develop. As a result, we all suffer, even simply, from the knock-on effect of being denied proper information about what's real and what's possible in human experience. Most hurtful of all is the fact that such distortions are often fuelled by a political agenda. The attack on holistic medicines by allopathy is no exception. And so it becomes necessary to clarify why these two traditions are so different and if they are truly irreconcilable. You would be forgiven for believing the animosity between these two sectors has arisen from an insurmountable disagreement in philosophy. Indeed, this forms a significant part of the dispute. Allopathic medicine can be classified by the idea that the cure to disease comes from its opposite. This is in particular contrast to homeopathy, which believes a disease is cured by its similar. So, if you have a disease that brings about a fever, an allopath will administer something that makes the body colder, thus reducing the fever and declaring a success against disease. Homeopaths, however, argue that the body further responds to the administered treatment, resulting in a deeper expression of the original symptoms over time. While this point in itself creates an interesting debate, what really sets allopathy apart from the holistic traditions is the idea that the body does not know what to do when most basic levels of illness arise, and so intervention is always required and most often not harmful. This point of philosophy, indeed religion, really distinguishes the two schools of healing. For example, eastern religions tend to share the idea that any profound power in the universe worthy of being defined " God " also exists within the human being. Thus, enlightment is the realisation of our connection to that power, and therefore fundamentally with everything around us. In contrast, western religions hold firmly the belief that " God " is a power distinct from and superior to human beings. While humans can be created, inspired and manipulated by it, they can never realise it. Our healing traditions reflect these ideas. As eastern thinking believes the human body possesses the ability to ward off dangers and heal itself, its healing traditions have developed to strengthen, empower and mobilise the body's own healing system. Responsibility and prevention are key. Interventions are against habits that weaken and damage the body's defences. In contrast, western medicines place greater importance on doctors, illnesses and treatments, rather than the underlying state of health of the individual. Illness is the inevitable result of an inadequate body. Not only can it not protect itself from " attacks " by " superior " microscopic organisms, but it will sometimes destroy itself for no apparent reason. " Health " , thus, requires intervention of a greater power - our doctor's expertise and the drugs they prescribe. Cure is defined by the disappearance of symptoms. However, these two philosophies were not always so distinct. Hippocrates, the indisputable " father " of allopathy, is better described as a naturopath. He believed the human body had a great capacity to heal itself, that first and foremost we should look to nature for answers, and that health resulted not from treatments but from building up the body's natural immunity. He paid close attention to diet and prevention, observed each case individually, treated the person as a whole, and opposed the categorisation of illnesses into diagnoses and formulaic treatment. Most of all, his principal of " first do no harm " was against the administration of toxic drugs. So what of medicine in the last 2,400 years? The more modern efforts to pursue wealth, power and land in the West have deeply affected not only our religious, but also our medical beliefs. It is from this history that we get the ideas of " superiority " over " inferiority " , mutually exclusive pure " good " and pure " evil " , and " domination " as a value. These are now reflected in our dominant system of healing. In next week's column, I will consider the information we receive about the successes and failures of each side, and the driving force behind domination - the pharmaceutical industry. Shalini Sinha works as a life coach and counsellor and presents the intercultural programme, Mono, on RTÉ Television. © The Irish Times - - - - <http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/health/2005/1004/2880074871HS04SHALINI.html>ht\ tp://www.ireland.com/newspaper/health/2005/1004/2880074871HS04SHALINI.html THE BIGGER PICTURE Shalini Sinha This is the second of two articles on the antagonism between orthodox and complementary healing. While there are distinct philosophical, indeed religious, differences between allopathy (the practice of our GPs and doctors in hospital) and " complementary " practices, they do not explain the intensity with which allopathic medicine can attack other healing perspectives. However, money does. The greatest profits in industry are made by pharmaceutical companies. Prescription drugs are big business. Protecting these profit margins is motive enough to undermine the effectiveness of healing traditions that might pre-empt the use of drugs. Allopathic medicine is dominant in society, not because it is more successful, but because it is supported by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Strong, often toxic, drugs weaken our bodies. They take control, nurturing a sense of inadequacy and overpowering our defences. Nearly all drugs include painkilling and relaxation elements. They are designed to " eliminate " symptoms rather than strengthen the body, and make us need them more. This is not to say that drugs have no place, but that the use of drugs is extremely serious with widespread consequences. The consistent use of such a variety of drugs must be challenged. Our healthcare system costs so much because a profit-making agenda dominates. Doctors earn so much because they are made more " responsible " - and so more powerful - than the individuals whose health is in question. They make the decisions, not us. Furthermore, allopathy lacks belief that the body, through lifestyle, nutrition and natural means, could address many difficulties (even serious ones) and so is particularly dependent on drugs. None of this encourages empowerment or better health. Rather, it makes it most susceptible to being co-opted by the pharmaceutical agenda. With so much money being pumped into the orthodox tradition, it is not surprising it has the largest body of research. Even so, and despite charges to the contrary, there has been some significant clinical documentation of naturopathic treatments and successes, going back decades. Yet, we are told that allopathy is the most reliable approach, and that evidence proving the others are effective does not exist. But there is evidence that natural therapies work. Another common charge is that the " complementary " therapy sector lacks regulation. This is often true. It is a leap, however, to conclude that this means the practices lack integrity. In fact, there have never been more reports of malpractice or more clinical failures in this sector than in allopathy. On the contrary, insurance companies will cover holistic therapists for infinitely less money - not because they deal with less difficult cases (most people do not engage with naturopathy until the other has abandoned them) but because their methods are less dangerous. Still, we are never told of the rate of clinical failures within the orthodox tradition. In fact, their difficulties are considered normal in practice and not a fault of the healing approach itself. They even have a word (iatrogenic) to categorise those sets of adverse conditions that arise as a result of their treatment. Yet, it is the " complementary " sector that must defend itself from attack. We are lucky to have a society with several different healing approaches. Allopathy has resources, structures and detailed information about specific body parts, drugs and pathogens. Natural therapies offer more time, empowerment, a holistic view of the body and detailed information about how nature can cure. If these traditions were co-operating, healthcare would cost significantly less and the health of our population would be much greater. For this to happen, we need the orthodox tradition to separate from the pharmaceutical industry and make a shift in power and pride - a frightening thing to do, but rewarding nonetheless. Allopathic medicine offers neither more insight into the human body nor better solutions for health than other traditions. Its institutional domination of healthcare is not accidental, but possibly because it lacks belief in the body's healing abilities, lacks commitment to the evidence of nature, lacks time for prevention and lacks general empowerment. Thus, we find ourselves dependent on drugs and under the influence of a profiteering industry. Its dominance is by design, with the health of its workers and patients suffering alike. It is ironic that we struggle to keep up with the payments demanded by this healthcare system while failing to maintain basic standards of good health. What we have is not a battle between two differing philosophies to be heard as " right " nor a fight for " better health. " It is a war for control and the accumulation of profits. Shalinisinha Shalini Sinha works as a life coach and counsellor and presents the intercultural programme, Mono, on RTÉ Television. © The Irish Times -- The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition. Sepp Hasslberger My page on physics, new energy, economy: http://www.hasslberger.com/ Critical perspective on Health: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/ Freedom of choice - La Leva di Archimede: http://www.laleva.cc/ La Leva's news: http://www.laleva.org/ Robin Good - http://www.masternewmedia.org/ Trash Your Television! http://www.tvturnoff.org/ http://www.tvnewslies.org/ Not satisfied with news from the tube and other controlled media? Search the net! There are thousands of information sources out there. Start with http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.truthout.org/ http://www.WantToKnow.info http://www.joevialls.co.uk/ http://www.Rense.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.