|
The material below is taken from Medical Choices, publication date April, 2002, by Iuniverse Books, a division of Barnes and Noble. This material is copyrighted and may be viewed for educational purposes only. Duplication by any means, electronic or otherwise, is prohibited.
CHAPTER FIVE
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
What is popularly termed “alternative medicine” is not a new phenomenon. It appears as if both medical hierarchy and conflicting medical views have always existed. Every medical practice that has ever been considered to be mainstream had replaced a previous mainstream practice. With the advent of a new dominant practice, the displaced dominant practice would continue to exist, but in a somewhat diminished status. The displaced practice would assume one of two postures. Either it would engage in open confrontation with its successor, or it would offer an alternative. Or, as was most often the case, it would engage in a combination of both postures. This is exactly what occurred when a distinction was made between “regulars” and “irregulars” in European medical history. As long as no physician received formal medical training, there was little distinction discernible. But when formal medical training was introduced, those who did not have it became “irregular,” while those who did became “regular.” The former became known as folk practitioners, while the latter were university trained doctors.
Alternative medicine in the modern sense received its impetus from the advent of scientific medicine, characterized by the use of powerful pharmaceuticals, capable of serious side effects, and more intrusive medical practices than had been used in the past, notably intricate surgeries. Scientific medicine appeared during the course of the nineteenth century, heralding in a new arsenal for the war on illness. But despite the massive furtherance of medical knowledge that occurred over the century, little advantage was gained over death and disease. Not that notable successes were lacking, but the new medicine appeared to not live up to its initial euphoric expectations. So there were critics and some rejected the new medicine.
The term “alternative” is a global, all encompassing term. It can include well trained individuals and self appointed healers, authentic health practitioners and charlatans. Some alternative therapies are grounded in science, while others are not. Lumping all that is not conventional medicine into one group is a mistake, yet alternative medicine means anything that is not mainstream allopathic medicine.
The Dawning of the Medical Turf Battle
During the nineteenth century but also somewhat before, for lack of a better term, there existed the “snake oil” salesman, delivering a variety of concoctions reputed to cure everything. A susceptible and believing public seemed willing to buy in to promises of a quick and almost magical cure. The market for such remedies was particularly fertile in the United States, the one western nation that was practically fanatical in its insistence on egalitarian medical practices. Not only was the development of monopolistically based medical organization strongly resisted in nineteenth century America, but the attraction of folk medicine and natural cures seemed to possess some mysterious validity.
The osteopathy of Andrew Still was a blending of a number of pre scientific practices, into which was woven some modern scientific precepts. Various electric treatment devices, then widely sold by mail order through the Sears catalogue, were a popular therapy. The obstruction of energy flow, which the founder of chiropractic, Daniel Palmer, believed to be the source of all disease, was acceptable to the masses but not to the new medicine. The new allopathic physicians were extremely critical of these, and other, non scientific approaches.
More ethereal healing modalities were introduced through the vehicle of religious belief. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science faith, held that since the only true reality was spirit, and matter therefore was an illusion; all disease was an outward physical manifestation of a spiritual imbalance. At her Metaphysical College, she taught her practitioners to provide spiritual treatments for physical maladies. If the individual did not recover, it was God’s will. As with all religious belief systems, there are both liberal and conservative interpretations of core beliefs. To the present day a small number of Christian Scientists refuse all medical treatment, even to the point of dying from readily treatable conditions, while the vast majority undergo spiritual treatment for the spirit, while simultaneously seeking medical treatment for the body.
Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saints, advocated only natural cures for ailments, relying on the support of Scripture for his beliefs. Early Saints were reluctant to ingest the new pharmaceuticals. Seventh Day Adventists also found the new medicine to be suspect, and initiated the naturopathic health spa in Battle Creek, Michigan. Its emphasis on clean living and proper nutrition, led to the development of the packaged cereal business. Homeopathy and hydrotherapy were popular for similar reasons.
As America moved into the early twentieth century populist medical beliefs and practices began to lose their appeal. There were a number of reasons for this. For one, the AMA was very persistent in leading the charge against unscientific medicine and in the upgrading and standardizing of medical training institutions. Buttressed by the Flexner Report, the AMA achieved considerable success in diminishing alternative medical practices. In addition, scientific medicine was aiding its own cause. The era was one of medical discovery, innovation, and advance. It appeared as if the new medicine was superior. The successes of the pharmaceutical industry seriously eroded the appeal for natural treatment. Speed, efficacy, and convenience were hard to transcend. And the federal government was moving confidently into the health care regulation arena. The presence of the Food and Drug Administration provided another powerful weapon for both AMA and pharmaceutical industry. As a consequence, interest in alternative approaches waned and would not resurface until after World War II.
In this chapter we will not catalogue and describe the many alternative therapies available. A number of book length works have dealt with this subject very effectively. Numerous magazines and websites devoted to the subject are also readily available. A good introductory and brief starting point is Body & Soul 1999 Holistic Health Guide, pages 90-106, put out by the editors of New Age magazine. The article catalogues alphabetically a good number of alternative approaches and briefly describes them. For depth try Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide, published by Future Medicine Publishers. This group also publishes Alternative Medicine magazine. Disease Prevention and Treatment, published by the Life Extension Foundation, which also publishes Life Extension magazine, is an excellent source, as is New Choices in Natural Healing, put out by Prevention Magazine Health Books. And finally, The Alternative Health & Medicine Encyclopedia, published by the Gale Group, is another excellent source.
Why Alternative Medicine?
The focus of this chapter is on the issue of why there even is alternative medicine, and why it is increasing in popularity. We will begin our discussion of alternative medicine by determining what it is not. Alternative medicine is not conventional (popularly termed allopathic) medicine. Conventional medicine is associated with surgery, prescription drugs, radiation, and chemotherapy as standard procedures. It rests on the principle that whatever it does is based firmly on science. It utilizes sophisticated technologies for diagnosis. It involves stringent laboratory testing. It is, by the AMA’s own definition, scientifically based biomedicine.
Conventional medicine is regarded by proponents of the alternative school to be intrusive medicine. It is intrusive in the sense that its procedures, particularly surgical ones, have advanced to the point wherein the body can be treated like a machine, with replaceable parts. Many exotic modern surgeries have become routine. They are not without risk, but countless lives have been prolonged.
By its very nature modern medicine is quite expensive. Reasons for this are quite complex, and this issue will be detailed in Chapter Eight. But for the time being, suffice it to state that, within the context of our definition, scientific procedures, elaborate laboratory tests, and teams of medical personnel performing multi hour surgeries, necessarily must be expensive.
Conventional medicine is accused of treating symptoms rather than causes. There is controversy and contention over this accusation, but let us consider the following. A patient is diagnosed with a cancerous tumor. The medical decision is to surgically remove it along with adjacent affected tissue. Perhaps the surgery is followed by radiation treatments, just in case a few errant malignant cells escaped the scalpel. The process might conclude with chemotherapy. These treatments are obviously aimed at saving the patient’s life; they are also aimed at treating the symptoms. What was the cause of the cancer? Certainly medical researchers are seeking answers to this question, but generally, conventional medicine treats the symptoms of disease, not the cause of disease.
In all fairness here, many allopathic physicians will advocate appropriate life style changes for their patients—diet, exercise, weight reduction, and so forth, but more often than not after the patient has recovered, not as a standard preventive approach. However, most patients do not seek out an allopathic physician because they want to map out a program of healthy living; rather, they seek one because they are ill, and more often than not, they want a quick fix. Most patients want to have their symptoms treated. Underlying causes are far less important than feeling better. Allopathic physicians treat symptoms of illness because, one, this is what they have been trained to do, and two, this is exactly the type of treatment most of their patients prefer.
This is not a criticism of conventional medicine. It is doing what it is designed to do, and in most instances, within its self-imposed parameters, it does an excellent job. Allopathic medicine has saved many lives. Its treatments have prolonged many others. It is a much desired and important medical modality—appropriately used.
Recently conventional medicine announced that the routine prescribing of antibiotics for influenza patients should be discontinued. The rationale for such prescribing had been to provide a precaution against possible secondary infection resulting from the flu. But it had long been known by individuals both inside and outside the medical profession, that the more antibiotics are administered, the less effective they become.
Conventional medicine is based on germ theory. Invading pathogens cause disease. But recall the controversy over germ theory and terrain theory mentioned in Chapter One. Conventional medicine is germ theory oriented. Understand, however, that germ theory versus terrain theory is not an absolute either-or scenario, with the adherents of the two positions lined up 100 percent on one side or the other. Alternative medicine emphasizes terrain theory, that is, build up the immune system so the pathogen cannot do its dirty work. Truly informed alternative practitioners recognize when allopathic treatment is the correct one. If a patient is suffering from a raging infection, debating over germ versus terrain is rather absurd.
The AMA has imposed rigorous standards for the training and educating of medical practitioners. Those standards are formed on a “scientific basis.” What is not scientific is to be spurned. Clearly, science is a major driving force in the modern world. But there could be a problem with, as the old saying goes, “putting all one’s eggs in the same basket.” Let us retreat for a moment to the time when the scientific method was being formed.
How Scientific Is Science?
For millennia humans had wallowed in fear and superstition, and the source of both was ignorance. Not knowing what caused various natural phenomena, they attributed causes to demons, angry gods, and spells. So when certain basic discoveries were made concerning the laws of the physical world, it was indeed liberating. The figure of Isaac Newton loomed large over the pages of the seventeenth century, and casts its shadow on the twenty first century. Newton and his contemporaries discovered that the material world was governed by physical laws. Discovery of these laws eventually would lead to understanding, and through understanding control would be achieved. Discovery meant delving deeply into the nature of things. It meant taking things apart; seeing how they worked; putting them back together; seeing if they still worked. It meant formulating a theory, testing it, by quantifying, measuring, and observing.
A systematic way of going about research was certainly a most positive step toward knowledge and understanding. But science is a product of its own level of understanding. When the steam engine was placed on a set of wheels on parallel rails to create the first rudimentary railroad engine, scientific pundits claimed that the device would disintegrate at thirty-five miles an hour. Nothing could go faster than that! The 1940’s era computer pioneers were predicting national needs for two, or three, or maybe even four computers. When IBM did a market feasibility study for its proposed Tape Processing Machine in 1951, it estimated eventual sales of twenty- five units. Physicists working on the atomic bomb were concerned that once a chain reaction was begun it might not be stopped. They went ahead with the tests anyway. If a man could fly he would have wings. Tell that to the aircraft industry. The speed of light is an absolute value in the universe. Then researchers fired a proton 200 times the speed of light by altering the field through which it was fired. Change the conditions, and change reality. And most recently, some astrophysicists claim that the speed of light has changed over time, challenging the absolute value of Einstein’s famous equation. So much dogmatism can hardly be termed science.
Science is supposed to seek knowledge, objectively and rationally. Science is to be conducted with an open mind, yet time and again, science is dominated by unbridled dogmatism. Seek not the truth; rather, seek to protect one’s own turf. Scientific objectivity has definitely yielded greater knowledge. But emphasis on itself is, in itself, not objective. Knowledge is acquired both objectively and subjectively. The two modalities comprise a balanced set of opposites. But scientific objectivity has denigrated subjective knowledge. The subjective nature of humanity is suppressed in order to worship at the altar of objectivity, which, due to its growing dogmatic nature, is hardly what it claims to be.
The very application of science, in its reductionism, is leading to some very disturbing discoveries. Science presupposes a mechanistic universe, subject to rigid law. Yet delving deep into the nature of things has uncovered a reality in which none of Newton’s laws seem to apply. Quantum physics has discovered a reality that is plastic. The experiments of the renowned world physicist, Dr. Leonard Mandel, indicate such mind boggling results as: protons have no definite characteristics or any reality before being observed; an unmeasured quantum system resides in potentiality until it is observed; light is both particle and wave.
Is there any validity beyond scientific objectivity? Can truth be known subjectively? Is “vitalism” (life force) a concept to be scorned? Neurophysiologist Norman Allan researches in the area of “patterned water,” that is, water that remembers what substance was put in it after the substance is removed. The suggestion is that the serial dilution process of homeopathy, which seems to defy science, can be proven by science. Reality is dotted with anomaly; Einstein’s theory of relativity is an anomaly. In its application science “proves” contradictory observation.
A commonality seems to exist among creative people. If one reads the biographies of scientists, inventors, composers, mathematicians, engineers, etc., overwhelmingly the solution to the project they were working on came to them in a dream. Is this a scientific way to obtain knowledge? Science is quantified; therefore, it should be predictable. In biomedicine, when a certain stage of an illness is reached, a predictable event is supposed to occur. Usually it does, but sometimes, it does not. Explain scientifically a spontaneous remission of disease. Numerous studies have been done on the power of mind, of emotion, and of placebo effect. They consistently indicate that there is a level of causation outside of science.
Science: The Projection and the Reality
Science and technology have never completely delivered on what they promised. Early scientific discoveries resulted in euphoria; humankind would discover all the laws that governed not only nature, but human institutions as well. The ultimate result would be indefinite progress—a veritable utopia on earth.
Adam Smith “discovered” the laws of economics that resulted in capitalism. A host of thinkers “discovered” the laws of government, that found expression in the political experiment known as American democracy. The introduction of the factory system was to provide efficiency, raise the standard of living, provide extensive consumer goods, end backbreaking labor, and yield considerable leisure time. The introduction and marketing of numerous home appliances were justified on similar grounds.
Substantial improvement in the quality of life would be the result of science. So mass culture jumped on the bandwagon of science. Validity was to be found only in that which was scientific. . Therefore, the study of government became the study of political science, social studies became social sciences, and the art of medicine became scientific biomedicine.
There is no arguing that industrialized, democratized nations possess a higher standard of living than do less developed societies. But did we get the utopia that was promised? With hundreds of billions of dollars spent on programs to eradicate poverty, disease, and ignorance, have these conditions been eliminated? Science was overly optimistic.
As has been discovered, science is only one of the players on a highly crowded and interactive field. Special interests, turf battles, politics, economics, environmental concerns, religious beliefs, etc., all affect its application. But if none of these complicating factors were present, there would still be a major problem for science.
Scientific discovery does not come about without a price. The personal automobile is indeed a wondrous machine. It provides ease of travel, convenience, mobility, and it provides congestion, pollution, and expense. Air conditioning is quite pleasant, but then science discovered the effects of chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion. The verdict is still out on the effect on humans by radio waves, television signals, microwave ovens, and cell phones. High voltage electrical transmission lines lose five percent of their power in transmission, and there are claims of subsequent health problems for cattle and for humans. Every one of these technologies provide positive features, yet the long-term effect of their use is not known.
New technologies have a habit of affecting people and society in a number of unanticipated ways. The sleeping pill, thalidomide, the insecticide, DDT, and the diet drug, Fen-Phen are the products of modern science, and science initially regarded these products as safe to use. Science was very, very wrong. Atomic power generating plants are great, even though they were originally proposed as a cheap source of electrical power that never materialized. And then came Three Mile Island, and later, Chernobyl. All these scientifically derived products and procedures cost money. The promised leisure, then, is generally sacrificed to earn the money to buy the things that were supposed to create more leisure. Society has experienced unbelievable social and cultural change as a byproduct of science, the long- term effects of which are yet to be determined.
The delivery of American medical care now absorbs fifteen percent of the Gross National Product, more than twice that of any other nation in the world. A little over one hundred years ago the cost was close to zero percent. There obviously has had to be a massive redistribution of financial resources. A byproduct of technology has been the creation of the service industry. All those wonderful technological gadgets require maintenance and servicing, and people have to be paid. The overall cost of living in technological societies is escalating. Whereas humanity once wallowed in misery, it can now be cynically claimed that science and technology has enabled humanity to be comfortable while it wallows in its misery.
The Psychology of Change
Another issue in the growth in popularity for alternative medicine is change, and the psychology of change. Natural changes, such as the process of aging, or changes in the weather, are generally regarded as normal parts of living. But change in the patterns or routines of life as we have established them for ourselves, is oftentimes not so readily accepted, and indeed, may be viewed with apprehension or even fear. The reason, simply put, is fear of the unknown. The present, even if it is miserable, is known; the future is not. The distinction for many is crucial, and some creative and predictable behaviors are the result.
Change may follow a normal progression to acceptance. At first it is categorically and violently opposed. With time opposition mellows to toleration. Eventually, opposition is dropped and the change is embraced. Previous opposition is then denied and erased from history, and credit might even be claimed for originating the idea in the first place. Modern medicine is very good at “discovering” things that alternative medicine has known all along. For a long time the holistic approach was denied by conventional medicine; patients were dismissed with such admonitions as “its all in your head,” something that alternative healers readily accepted and used as part of their diagnosis and treatment. But when it was eventually “proven” that there is a mind-body connection in health and disease, conventional medicine took credit for it. Equally is this true with nutritional supplementation.
Change, historically, breeds its antithesis. The more rapidly and broadly it occurs, the more people romanticize about the “good old days.” Nostalgia is a great defense against change. The consequence can be a Luddite (anti technology) type resistance to change. Modern medicine has changed so much in recent decades that part of the move to alternative medicine can be attributed to it. There is far less anxiety associated with the familiar, with the natural. Imposing diagnostic equipment operated by nameless technicians can be very threatening to the patient. The alternative approach, on the other hand, generally involves a non invasive one-on-one personal relationship.
Impersonality
The impersonality of modern conventional medicine is an issue. It operates at a factory pace. More time is spent with the house painter discussing complementary color schemes than is spent with the physician who is prescribing powerful side effect ridden pharmaceuticals. This is a very real factor; the servicing of allopathic medicine leaves something to be desired. Did you ever swear to never return to a restaurant because you received lousy service, even though the cuisine was quite excellent?
One characteristic of science is its reliance on quantification. It measures, counts, tabulates, and develops statistical data. It also sets standards for what it terms “acceptable risk.” By its very methodology it does not provide absolute assurances of success. Science is fallible. There is a five percent chance one might develop side effect X. There is a forty percent chance the procedure may cause condition Y. There is a ten percent chance one might die in surgery. People become percentages, numbers. Can you get more impersonal than that?
American society has changed massively since the 1960’s. Use whatever term you like: Now Generation, Baby Boomers, Yuppies, Self Gratification Society, individuals today are much better informed, more assertive, less elitist, and less traditional than the generations that preceded them. All of these changes affect how they view medical care and how they treat medical practitioners.
The information revolution is certainly a factor. Availability of information, even for the somewhat less technically sophisticated, has never been so extensive. The deadening effect of pabulum television is well documented, but television also presents many very informative and educational programs for those interested, including programs on health and science. One can actually watch surgeries being performed on television. Some of the investigative reporting type programs provide worthwhile information in a form readily understandable by practically anyone willing to view them. Knowledge has been popularized and democratized.
News magazines and specialty magazines provide in depth reports that are not compressed by the time demands placed on newspaper accounts. There has been, without exaggeration, an explosion of magazines devoted to health issues. Overwhelmingly, the health issues discussed are alternative health issues. On the other hand, few people read The Journal of the American Medical Association, or the New England Journal of Medicine, nor are their articles written for any reader audience other than a professional one.
Web sites devoted to health issues abound, and there is considerable variety. Government sponsored web sites present updated information on conventional and some alternative medicine. Alternative medicine sites do likewise within their areas of specialization. The web can be used to research a disease, seek out treatment options and locations, and find a physician. Health questions can be posted on a number of web sites, or discussed in numerous chat rooms. Tremendous amounts of information are readily available. There is a caution however. As all experienced web surfers are well aware, not everything on the web is correct information. It is essential to research carefully, double check, verify from other sources, and not blindly accept any information, from the web or from any other source as well.
Related to the impersonality issue is what futurists refer to as the human need to compensate for high technology. There was a time when most daily activities were interwoven with social function. For instance, a bank deposit involved an interaction with a live person, one that you might get to know personally over a period of time. There was a time when an actual living person put gasoline in your car, washed the windshield, checked the oil, and perhaps performed minor automotive repairs. He worked in or owned the neighborhood “filling station,” and you actually knew his name. These simple interactions added value to life.
In the two examples just given, an ATM transaction has replaced human interaction. Across the span of human activity this is increasingly becoming the norm. Wherever it is possible to substitute automation for a human being it is being done. In the process, personal relationships are obliterated. Equally is this true regarding modern medicine practice. Speed, efficiency, and technology, all in the name of science or economics, has replaced the personal relationships that once existed. At one time the physician was a personal friend, knew the entire family, and advised and consoled. No more.
The compensatory activity for impersonal high technology involves a retreat from technology to more basic human needs: human interaction. Ironically, call in talk shows, chat rooms, support groups, various New Age activities, counseling groups, etc., are all manifestations of the need to replace what technology has taken away. So too, I believe, is the growing trend toward alternative medicine.
For alternative medicine is not high tech; it emphasizes the “natural,” and it is holistic. It emphasizes dealing with the patient as a person. The very nature of the alternative approach calls for the attending physician to get to “know his/her patient. There have been studies that indicated that elderly people sometimes visit their physician not because they are ill but because they are lonely. They do not require a pill; they need a symbolic hug. People need to interact with other people; sensory deprivation is debilitating. If they cannot interact within the scope of their daily activity, then they will seek out other alternatives.
In natural healing part of the healing process is psychological, emotional, relationship based. Feelings do affect recovery. Negative individuals become ill more often and recover more slowly than positive people. Why are conventionally trained physicians “amazed” at a spontaneous healing or remission? Alternative practitioners are not amazed; they expect such occurrences as the norm. And why? Theirs is a different paradigm.
Alternative Cultures, Alternative Medicines
“Celebration of cultural diversity” is a frequently quoted expression. The United States is and always was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural nation. Cultural diversity cannot be sorted into neatly defined categories. Diversity knows no boundaries; one cannot accept only part of a culture and still champion cultural diversity. One cannot pick and choose which parts of a culture one chooses to celebrate. It is a matter of all or nothing, all the beliefs, including its medical beliefs. One effect of the national championing of diversity has been a growing toleration and interest in alternative therapies from different cultures.
It should therefore not be surprising that there is a resurgence of Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, Native American medicine, and Islamic medicine. Interpretation of “political correctness” dictates that society should show respect for all the beliefs of all the people, regardless of their foundation in fact. In the process, individuals become acquainted with medical treatments that possess an appeal, either because they are new, strange, or mysterious, or because they seem to work. The reason for the attraction really does not matter. The opportunity to come into contact with new or different medical practices is a part of the modern cultural milieu.
As global economy increasingly becomes reality, as people travel more widely and more frequently, it is not only the dances, songs, and wines of the world that are being discovered, it is the medicines of the world as well. It is not only our food that comes from around the globe, it is our nutritional supplements as well. Noni juice from the South Pacific, herbs from the Amazon rain forest, herbs from China, oils from the Mid East, and various glacial drinking waters, are but some examples of this new and globally diverse phenomena.
Social changes have also had their effect on how we view our medicine. People once deferred to and respected authority figures. This never was a rigid behavior because the pull of anti elitism has always been strong in America, and class consciousness has never developed to the level that it has in many other nations. But “The Movement,” the social revolution of the 1960’s, changed the manner in which we treat each other. Individual rights were discovered, rights were demanded, and rights were flaunted. Decorum gave way to the new value of personal assertiveness. The early feminist movement embraced “assertiveness training.” It became socially acceptable to announce pride in oneself, in one’s heritage, race, culture, gender, ethnicity, life style.
The permissiveness that resulted from Sixties behavior led to an emphasis on self-gratification, the “me” generation. The Beatles proclaimed that “Love is the answer,” but another side of the era indicated otherwise. People became more aggressive, more self centered, and more assertive. A competitive and aggressive nature is admired in American culture. The rise of American capitalism was buttressed by Social Darwinism. The cult of spectator sports is based on winning. The drug addicted entertainer and the dysfunctional millionaire athlete are tolerated, even excused, as long as they are star performers, if they can win.
Part of the “I got my rights” mentality is evidenced by the growing number of people viewing their medical care differently than they once did. Doctor-patient relationship smatters of a superior-inferior relationship. The patient today views medical care from the viewpoint of consumer. The consumer is in charge, and the health provider is the consumer’s employee. Many modern health care consumers know what they want (television drug ads are a prime source of created need), demand what they want, and if they do not get what they want, they seek another physician. The docile, passive patient is slowly disappearing. The growing commercialism of modern medicine is counterbalanced by the growing consumerism of the modern patient.
The changes of the Sixties brought about a rejection of the traditional parent-child archetype, of which doctor-patient is an aspect. When the movie Mash, first appeared, it was vigorously opposed by the AMA, for the movie portrayed doctors as being very human; the façade was under assault. The celebrated Shepard murder trial was viewed as particularly egregious by the American public because Shepard was a physician, and physicians simply did not do such things. A trust had been violated. A number of pedestals were lowered in the Sixties: politicians, religious leaders, health practitioners, and most other traditional authority figures. A cynicism emerged from the revelation that these people behaved like everyone else. The status of privilege was to be no more.
In some measure this changed perception was the inevitable culmination of the American popularized interpretation of democracy. Equality before the law, which is what the United States Constitution guarantees, somehow became equated with equality of skill, talent, and knowledge. The goal was one of finding the lowest common denominator of mass America, and making it the norm, popularly referred to as the cult of mediocrity. Knocking the elites from their pedestals was somewhat vindicating, and a vicarious pleasure was thereby derived. Pulling you down is far easier than raising me up.
Egalitarian Beliefs
But a more positive dimension involves a legitimate freedom, that being the right to choose. What separates a democracy from other types of political systems is the degree of personal freedom allowed to exist: the freedom to choose a career, friends, location, life style, even one’s preferred medical treatment. This is significant. The freedom to choose is a fundamental right. For a society to deny that right is to make a mockery of democracy, yet there is a concerted attempt by some to do just that.
It is interesting to note that those who would impose their system of behavior on others seem to consistently fail to realize that by so doing, they are often actually reinforcing that behavior. Tell people they cannot do something, and some, out of defiance will do it, even though they initially had no intention of doing so. The consumption of alcohol did not diminish with the enactment of national prohibition, but it did make criminals out of people for doing what they had always done. Tell people they cannot partake of their supplements of choice, and most assuredly, many will find a way. What is legal is what a legislative body, a court, or a government agency states is legal. What is legal is not necessarily what is moral, or what is right.
Contrary to big government mentality, there are many people who do not seek and do not want the government in their daily lives. They really do prefer to take care of themselves. We see this preference expressed in many avenues of life, not only in the area of health care choices. Increasingly, people are forming self help groups, support groups, health food cooperatives, and community outreach groups. They are growing their own organic food, preserving the environment, becoming less energy dependent, and relying on each other rather than on the government. The home schooling initiative is an aspect of this, as are neighborhood associations, block watch programs, and community policing.
Personal Empowerment
The aforementioned moves stress independence, they are empowering, and they partially compensate for the growing impersonality of modern culture. One obvious way of avoiding or at least minimizing the effects of modern culture is to implement appropriate life style changes. In the field of health care the most effective life style change is the one that emphasizes prevention. Nutrition, dietary supplements, and exercise programs are somewhat reminiscent of the health spa movement a little more than a century ago.
Interest in the holistic approach to mind-body is at an all time high. Meditation techniques, relaxation exercises, spiritual classes, theosophy classes, and metaphysical schools, provide ongoing opportunities for people from all walks of life. People are searching for answers in a mechanistic impersonal world that some refer to as an insane asylum. Critics frequently refer to those interested in such things as “New Agers.” But the same caution applies to the so-called New Age Movement as does to alternative medicine: there is no one-size-fits-all definition. Many very sincere and responsible people are seeking order and control in their personal lives.
Thirty years ago the consumer had to seek out a ‘health food’ store. But today, due to increased demand (and the market follows demand), there are health food stores in every shopping center and strip mall. Every other shopping center sports a health club. Memberships in health clubs, enrollments in yoga and t’ai chi classes, the use of dietary supplements, and the purchase of home exercise equipment, are all evidences of a health conscious trend and self-empowerment.
Consumption of hard liquor has diminished nationally, tobacco use has dropped (at least for older Americans), people are increasingly concerned about maintaining their health by avoiding unhealthy practices or situations, and by building the immune system of body. The intent is to perhaps avoid the impersonal HMO, the hurried specialist, or the toxic drugs. These behaviors conjoin extremely well with the philosophical framework of most alternative medicine. Devotees of the natural movement are very concerned about the side effects of pharmaceuticals, the risks of surgery, and the limitations of scientific biomedicine. Theirs is not a blind faith; they seek other, or more complementary, approaches.
Some of the reluctance to partake of modern medicine involves a growing wariness about the limitations of modern biomedicine. In some respects modern medicine has overstated both the alleged infallibility of science and the successes of its own treatments. While quick to challenge the “proof” of alternative medicine, conventional medicine has rarely “proved” the efficacy of many of its own treatments. Instead, it assumes itself to be superior, because it has determined that its scientific paradigm is superior. What is the “cure rate” for conventional medicine? For alternative and complementary medicine?
The Apple and Orange Comparison
The issue is complicated by the fact that it is impossible to obtain and compare data since the modus operandi of the two approaches is so different. Conventional medicine concentrates on disease, while alternative medicine concentrates on health. If an individual pursues a healthy life style, and then evidences good health, is the good health the result of the life style or genetic structure, or luck? Can an alternative approach be credited with the preservation of health? Also, are most cures the result of medical intervention, or is the body curing itself? Is belief in the treatment, regardless of its type, more important than the treatment itself. Some studies have indicated that as many as thirty percent of patients receiving placebos are “cured.”
There is a growing confidence gap. Medical mistakes appear to be increasing, and if they are not, then at the very least, the publicizing of them is increasing. It makes people wary. And some medical positions do appear a bit absurd. When an article in a leading medical journal states that the incidence of breast cancer can be reduced by removing breasts before they become cancerous, and no one is laughing at this preposterous suggestion, we have a credibility gap. Why not just kill everyone who is healthy and thereby prevent them from dying from a disease!
And finally, there is evidence that many alternative therapies are grounded in science, and that they do work. Science is uncovering scientific validity for popular folk culture treatments, and it is discovering the intricate interrelationships that exist at the quantum level of physicality. It is becoming increasingly difficult to categorically deny anything (see Chapter Seven).
The federal government appears, at first glance, to have become far less rigid in its stance on alternative medicine. Through the National Institute of Health, one of the eight major agencies of the United States Public Health Service, it established the Office of Alternative Medicine in 1993. At the time the OAM was placed under the Director of the NIH, and it possessed a rather limited budget. In 1998 Congress replaced the OAM with the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, as a full center within the National Institute of Health. Its budget was increased substantially.
The charge given to the new national Center, is to rigorously apply scientific research to determine what complementary and alternative practices and treatments work, which do not, and why they do or do not work. The Center evaluates herbal products, nutritional supplements, and vitamins, as well as treatments such as acupuncture and chiropractic. Furthermore, the Center trains the researchers of complementary and alternative medicine in the proper research methodology of biomedicine. The Center also possesses a major charge in the area of communication.
NCCAM maintains a Clearinghouse, established in 1996, which provides information to the general public on complementary and alternative issues. Information is available by telephone, fax, through various internet databases, news releases, and on request, through its many publications. All information is available free of charge. Instructions on how to access all aspects of NCCAM information can be gotten from its extensive website.
The existence of NCCAM appears to be a definite positive one. To some extent this is true, but there is a fundamental flaw in the program. Science espouses objectivity, but the accepted standard of excellence for the NCCAM is biomedicine. The only acceptable methodology for evaluating complementary and alternative medicine is the methodology of biomedicine. The inherent assumption, then, is that biomedicine is not be questioned; it is the Absolute. Complementary and alternative medicine is only valid if it fits the biomedical model.
Complementary and alternative medicine is being evaluated according to the standards of a mechanistic scientific model that reflects modern biomedicine. Evaluating non-mechanistic modalities with the tools and standards of the mechanistic mindset, simply does not make any sense. These standards are based on an interpretation of reality formulated over three hundred years ago. They imply that our understanding of physicality as determined then has remained static, and this is hardly the case. If you build an instrument that measures light within a certain frequency range, it will not recognize light outside of that range. It will only measure that which it was designed to measure. If you have a belief system that is programmed within prescribed limits, it will not operate outside of those limits. Commonly referred to as in-the-box thinking, it precludes creativity and innovation, out-of-the-box thinking. Most individuals hold their beliefs so rigidly that even to casually question them is not an option.
When Galileo revealed his observations on the nature of the solar system, the established authority of his day, the Church, which was devoid of any knowledge of science, applied the standards of the Church in evaluating the correctness of his discovery. Galileo’s monumental discoveries were repudiated, and condemned as heresy. The Keepers of Truth throughout history have always imposed their rigid beliefs on new ideas.
There is some worthwhile information available through NCCAM. Just understand that it has been filtered, and only what can fit in a predetermined scientific “box” is acceptable.
Chapter Summary
What can be termed “alternative” predates modern scientific medicine. The dispute over what is the “best” treatment has always existed.
American egalitarianism fostered a climate that produced a wide variety of populist medical practices up to the early twentieth century.
By using pharmaceuticals, surgeries, radiation, and chemotherapy, conventional medicine has been labeled “intrusive.” Since it does not utilize these treatment modalities, alternative medicine is regarded as being non intrusive.
The emphasis of conventional medicine is on treating symptoms. The emphasis of alternative medicine is on treating causes.
Science provides the validation for conventional medicine. Yet science possesses its own shortcomings, and is currently valid only within a narrow band of reality.
All scientific advances come at a price. Sometimes that price is unanticipated disaster.
Change is rigorously resisted by those who have much invested in the status quo. Change is rarely embraced by society in general due to a fear of the unknown
The institutionalization and specialization of conventional medicine renders it very impersonal.
There is a need to compensate for high tech impersonality with human interaction. This is something that alternative medicine claims to provide.
Interest in alternative medicine is partly the result of the diversity of American culture, and partly the result of the globalization of commerce and knowledge.
Since the Sixties Americans have been much less willing to accept the pronouncements of the “expert” unchallenged.
Since the Sixties a segment of the population has been much less willing to accept responsibility for their own actions.
At the same time there exists a national movement of individuals seeking to take control of their own health.
There is a crisis of confidence in the medical establishment due to the growing awareness of the severity and frequency of medical errors.
Alternative medicine is becoming increasingly validated by science, yet remains humanistic and personal.
Alternative medicine is slowly moving into the mainstream of medical practice, but government seeks to control it according to the standards of conventional medicine.
|