Fwd: Irish Times sees the bigger picture

[Guest guest]

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/