There is No Alternative Medicine?
I recently read a beautiful article written by a practicing physician, entitled The Art of Medicine and the Power of Human Touch. The essay ends with the author describing how he often puts his hand on the forehead of a sick patient, “much as a mother would to check a child’s temperature. I rest it there for a few seconds at the hairline, just enough to let them know I’m connected; you are not alone, I will care for you. I will try to give a little spark of life to each patient…” This is the doctor I want caring for me, my family and my friends.
In contrast, MedPage Today Editor-at-Large and former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, George Lundberg, has written a post called The Effect of Therapeutic Touch is Based on Pure Chance. In it, he makes a bold set of statements regarding alternative therapies: “There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine.” Well, let’s not confuse bold with bull.
What starts out as a lecture, arguing that the only health care therapies with value are those based on hard scientific methodology and evidence, ends as a diatribe, lacking clarity or logic. The main problem with it is that Lundberg begins with an arrogant statement, then goes on to support his position with a single thirteen-year-old study regarding one small subset of alternative therapies. In fact, the particular therapy upon which he unleashes his venom (Therapeutic Touch, a modern variation of the ancient “laying-on of hands”) is in no way representative of alternative medicine as a whole. Curiously, it also does not have a track record for harm. Lundberg fails to identify even a single safety concern, but simply whines that there is no basis for its effectiveness. Then he contradicts himself by observing: “even the non-touch of an individual believed by a sick person to be a healer can heal.”
The article ends with with a check-in to “the arbiter, Mr. Google,” finding more than two million hits for the search term “Therapeutic Touch.” He follows this observation with, “Such are the ways of the world. There ain’t no justice. They know not what they do.” The jump he makes here is clearly absurd. Using the same illogical approach, I checked with Google and was returned 2.6 million hits for the search term “drug recall.” What does this mean? Without evaluating content, absolutely nothing. There are no conclusions to be drawn, no judgments to construe. It’s all nonsense.
Unfortunately, even without supportive evidence for their assertions, articles like these can be influential, especially when written by field experts with impressive credentials. In the case of this post, it’s most important to question Lundberg’s assumption that his definition of medicine is meaningful to anyone other than him. Would you want another person dictating the choices made available to you? Is it the job of the doctor to tell you what qualifies as therapy, or to withhold options that he doesn’t like? In my opinion, it is the duty of the physician, as a service provider in the health care industry, to educate his patients in a manner that respects each one’s values. This involves presenting choices – including those that might not be the doctor’s personal favorites, disclosing associated risks and benefits, and answering the patient’s questions in a way that helps him make the best choice for himself. Because, at the end of the day, it is you, the patient, who must sign-off on your medical decisions and assume full responsibility for them. Don’t you think, then, that you deserve to be as informed as possible?
Marcie,
Thanks for forwarding the articles.
As Will Rogers or some other luminary once said,
(paraphrase badly here) “If you think something works or you think it doesn’t YOUR RIGHT”
Very happy to hear from you, I hope all is well.
Bob