Sierpina schrijft in zijn artikel uit 2006 enkele boeiende dingen, die we hier graag weergeven. In de negentiende eeuw begon het duidelijk: Initially, in the mid 19th century, alternative systems were out to destroy and eliminate the then toxic allopathic system. No doubt, such calls for reform were reasonable when the standard of care called for bleeding, heavy metals, and a variety of toxic nostrums which were a real risk to patients. Niet-allopatische systemen waren toen beter voor de patient, omdat de allopathie alleen maar ernstig giftige stoffen inzette en de patienten lieten leegbloeden. 

De homeopaten, natuuurgeneeskundigen en aanverwante collega's konden toen makkelijk zeggen dat hun behandelingen in ieder geval veiliger waren. Practitioners of homeopathy, naturopathy, mental healing, spiritual healing, chiropractic, herbalism, hydrotherapy, and other naturalistic approaches could reasonably proclaim that their treatments were much less likely to kill their patients than the medicine of the day. Dat is wel iets om weer eens te memoreren, dat veel niet-allopatische behandelingen in ieder geval veilig zijn! Dat geldt nog steeds.

De opkomende technische geneeskunde heeft veel acute ziekten met chirurgie en antibiotica kunnen oplossen. Maar, aldus de auteur van dit overzichtsartikel, deze technieken werken niet bij de complexe ziekten van vandaag, atherosclerose, dementie, artrose en kanker. En vervolgens: door het toepassen van het allopatische model alleen sterven veel mensen, dat wat we iatrogene schade noemen. The promises of medical research have sometimes come to fruition at a glacial pace in such conditions. More people die from medical mistakes annually than they would from a jet airliner crashing daily over the same period. Er sterven per jaar meer mensen aan medische missers dan dat er zouden sterven als er elke dag een jumbojet zou neerstorten...(Hayward RA, Hofer TP. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001 ;286:415-420.)

De auteur stelt dat dit de context is waarbinnen patienten zoeken naar alternatieve benaderingen:

This remains the context and content of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine. Patients either not responding to, fearful of, or dissatisfied with contemporary medicine, or wishing to integrate alternative with conventional therapies continue to abound.

Daarom roept de auteur op tot wederzijds respect en samenwerking:

It is vital that we leam to work in teams and collaborate with other practitioners in a pluralistic health care system for the benefit of our patients' problems, be they rooted in mind, body, or spirit. These other practitioners are often specialists and experts in their domains as surely as are our own medical specialty colleagues. They have levels of expertise that we need not master but that require us to understand the processes of care and referral.

Tenslotte een mooie take home message:

• The path to this is by respecting patients' values and choices for integrating conventional and complementary therapies.
• We must leam what we can of the evidence supporting or contradicting altemative approaches and the methods of our nonmedical health professionals.
• This is done best by developing deep listening, tolerance, and cultural fluency.
• By knowing our own profession's history, we will be better poised to heal our patients, ourselves, and our profession in an integral way.

Bron

Victor S. Sierpina, MD. The History of Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Southern Medical Journal • Volume 99, Number 8, August 2006, 906-907

Literatuur

Whorton JC. Nature Cures: The History of Altemative Medicine in America. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York, Basic Books, 1982.

Share |

Commentaar

Schrijf commentaar
Naam:
Onderwerp:

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/