|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, August 22, 2002Somehow the notion that “alternative medicine” is superior to conventional medicine has taken root in many people’s minds, including some congressmen and doctors. For some, it’s the idea that alternative medicines are “natural” that is so appealing; for others it's the illusion that they are taking control of their illness, and for many it's because conventional medicine has failed them. Take herbal medications. Because they are derived from herbs, many people think that taking them is akin to eating mint or basil grown in the garden. Never mind that the herbal supplements on the health food store shelves are in fact drugs, and unsupervised drugs at that. The truth is, conventional medicine also relies on drugs derived from nature. Digoxin, a heart medication, comes from the leaves of the foxglove plant; aspirin is derived from a chemical found in willow bark, wintergreen, and the meadowsweet plant; most of our narcotics are derivatives of morphine and other chemicals found in the poppy; there are cancer drugs that come from the periwinkle and the Yew tree; and the majority of antibiotics are derived from bacteria and fungi that live in the soil. The list goes on and on. Both herbal medication and conventional medication are manufactured in chemical factories. There is no inherent purity to the herbals just because they are labeled “herbal”. The difference between these conventional medicines and the herbal supplements are: 1) the conventional medications are manufactured in a form that insures adequate and reliable concentrations in the body, herbal medicines are not; and 2) conventional medications are tested for efficacy and safety, herbal medicines are not. Those who convince themselves that herbals are superior by virtue of their very nature are only fooling themselves. Unfortunately, some of those fools are congressmen, and they have unleashed their foolishness on the unsuspecting public by allowing herbals to circumvent safety standards that other drugs must meet. Many more people turn to unconventional methods for a sense of control. The herbals they buy at the health food store may not work any better than the prescription drug the doctor gives them, but if so, it was their choice, not someone else's. Similarly, following elaborate diet regimens like those of Dean Ornish to combat heart disease, confers a sense of control and mastery that taking an aspirin a day or having your coronary arteries rotor-rooted doesn't. It may not be as effective as taking an aspirin a day, or having a procedure, but no matter. It gives you a feel-good feeling. The idea that lifestyle management and diet are the sole provence of alternative medicine, however, is false. Since the days of Hippocrates conventional medicine has advocated diet and lifestyle modification for a variety of conditions: obesity, gout, diabetes, heart disease to name a few. We still do. Following the diet and lifestyle prescriptions, however, requires willpower and hard work on the part of the patient. Too often, the will is weak, and the modifications fail. Sometimes they are only partially successful. In those cases we have to rely on drugs to give treatment a boost. The idea that conventional medicine and medical doctors ignore the importance of diet, self-care, and the emotional and life-style causes of disease is only a perception, not a reality. The difference between conventional medicine and alternative medicine in this respect is simply that conventional medicine has alternatives to turn to when these fail or when a disease isn’t responsive to them. Alternative medicine practioners, in contrast, usually only tout one treatment - their treatment. The most common reason for turning to alternative medicine is because conventional medicine has failed. You see this in the terminal cancer patients who turn to crystal therapy, or faith healing, or travel to Mexico for a miraculous cure; in arthrititis patients who undergo "bee sting therapy;" and in dementia patients whose well-meaning relatives load them up with all sorts of herbals to improve the mind. They are desperate people in search of a cure, and as such deserve protection from hucksters who would use that desperation to turn a quick profit. It’s true that there is much in modern medicine that is based on theory and speculation more than hard evidence. Estrogen replacement therapy to prevent heart disease fell into this category, as does the use of cholesterol lowering drugs to reduce heart disease in healthy people. It is also true that there are some alternative medicine practices that are of benefit. Chiropractic manipulation and acupuncture for pain come most easily to mind. (Although some practioners go too far when they suggest that chiropractic manipulation and acupuncture can cure allergies and the like.) Conventional medicine, however, is at least based on some understanding of the drug or treatment involved and the way it interacts with the physiology and biology of the human body. Too often, "alternative" medicine is just whistling in the wind. More importantly, conventional medicine is willing to scrutinize and reconsider its theories and therapies and discard them when they are disproven. "Alternative" medicine does not. Now tell me, which is the better approach? posted by Sydney on 8/22/2002 06:15:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
