Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 05:28:23 -0600
From: Bruce Hagood <hagood-AT-ro.com>
Subject: Re: Pardon my curiosity, Mr Haines


This is an interesting thread!

My two cents' worth, FWIW:  MD's, especially in the United States (I can't speak
too well for MD's in other countries, and I am not an MD myself, understand) do a
good job of giving catastrophic care and care for trauma.  Routine health
situations seem to be a problematic area now.

My grandparents' generation saw doctors as gods walking on earth, and the doctors,
by and large, were happy to concur with this opinion.  As I see it, people of my
generation and younger generations are seeing the clay feet on the MD's, but the
MD's (as a general rule, note) still insist on being treated as gods walking on
earth.  There is a disconnect here!

Understand, I think that on the whole, it is better to have MD's in our society
than not.  As I say, MD's do a good job with trauma and catastrophic care, and many
MD's do a pretty good job with routine health care.  But as I see it, the problem
is that MD's have a tendency to want to treat the symptoms rather than the
underlying causes.  It is much easier to wait until the problem starts getting out
of hand, and then prescribe some medication for the problem.  It is much tougher to
recommend and supervise fundamental lifestyle changes which will avoid potential
problems.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but MD's tend to go with the
latter because it is easier for them.  That is a human impulse, but not necessarily
best for our long-term health.  Hence the rise in popularity of alternative health
strategies.

   BH

Daniel Haines wrote:

> f1221-AT-cc.nagasaki-u.ac.jp wrote:
> >
> > At 10:37 PM 99.1.5, Daniel Haines wrote:
> > >
> > > forget about such vague terms as "rigid psychic structures" and take a
> > > look at what most people eat and how they spend their time - fast
> > > food/coca-cola/ sitting down.  too much alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine,
> > > sugar, exhaust fumes, noise pollution etc etc etc -- while we cannot
> > > control all aspects of the environment we live in (or perhaps un-control
> > > is a more appropriate phrase) we do have choices about many things and a
> > > lot of people - for whatever reason - choose things that are "unhealthy"
> > > and contribute to serious illnesses.  I don't want to sound like some
> > > preacher of purity here, but I don't see what is so unspeakable about
> > > the medical profession telling people that IF they want to be healthy,
> > > THEN they have to work at it and PAY ATTENTION! to their lifestyle.
> >
> > What is so unspeakable about the medical profession telling people that
> > IF they want to be healthy, THEN they have to work at it...
> >
> > Pardon my curiosity, Mr Haines, but have you ever told this to a patient ?
>
> I feel you've maybe missed my point here.  of course I've never told
> this to "a patient" - I don't have any patients.  but that is neither
> here nor there.  I assume that your questioning tone here is meant to
> imply a certain naivete on my part, but i'm not trying to claim that I
> am in any way equipped to try and act as a doctor or whatever, nor am I
> trying to claim so authority in such matters. i'm just questioning the
> institutionalised position of medicine, based mostly on my own
> experience and that of others who I know personally.  I am not
> anti-medicine or anti-doctors - but i thnk the role that medicine has
> come to play within western societies is as potentially damaging to
> health as it is potentially beneficial -- for the reasons I have already
> outlined regarding the idea of our health as "fixable" in a way
> analogous to, say, a motor car.  so for you to ask "have you ever told
> this to a patient ?" is to appeal to a relationship - doctor/patient -
> as it exists now, and which is exactly what I was attempting to make
> problematic in my comments.
>
> > I have, I have, and not just once. Do you really believe, a physician would
> > say anything else but >everbody is the one most important guardian of
> > his own life -and should act accordingly< ? Do you really believe, the
> > >mainstream< medicine does NOT think and say smoking, eating fast food,
> > taking too little exercise -yes AND swallowing down anger and grief- will
> > be unhealthy in the long run ?
>
> of course i don't believe this.  but they might just say nothing.  and,
> again, it is more to do with peoples relationship to their own health as
> mediated by doctors than what doctors themselves might  think or say.
>
> > > Yes, I know this only relates distantly to most instances of cancer.
> > > but I'm more interested here in your attitude towards the patient, the
> > > idea that the worst thing you can do is blame someone for their
> > > illness.  from a healing-process  point of view I can see your point,
> > > but there is more to it than you seem to allow.
> >
> > You are arguing against something I have not said.
>
> okay - sorry if i've misunderstood or extended what you've said - I'm
> not trying to score points against you, I'm just interested in this area
> of discussion.
>
> >
> > > and no, I don't think any illness is anyone's "FAULT"; I'm suggesting
> > > only that it may result from lifestyle choices or ignorance -- the
> > > extension of your example here --> "No, he did not speak of fault or
> > > > punishment, but what do you think, the patient made out of it ?
> > >" is that no one should be made aware of how they get ill in anyway,
> > >in case it makes them feel bad about it!
> >
> > Sorry, but that is nonsense.
>
> (it was meant to be!)
>
> >
> > Let`s say, a patient smoked and got a bronchial carcinoma: I would
> > tell him quite frankly that smoking causes cancer, that this has been
> > known for decades and that he himself probably knew it perfectly well.
> >
> > But the link between smoking and lung cancer has been demonstrated,
> > both epidemiologically and experimentally !
> > The link between the >rigid character< and cancer is at best a fancyfull
> > medical hypothesis.
>
> i accept this distinction.  although i think the you are throwing in the
> word fanciful to discredit it in advance... it has been established that
> there are links between your "character" and how/whether certain
> illnesses manifest.  why shouldn't we therefore look at whther this is
> the case with cancer(s)? what's so fanciful about that?
>
> > > and to tie this back in to the rigid structure thing --> people's
> > > psychic structures relate to how they approach life and the life choices
> > > they make.  rigidity is opposed to adaptibility, which is important in
> > > relation to health issues - especially diet, i would argue: a refusal or
> > > inability to see the need to eat differently to what your parents ate,
> > > to continue a potentially unhealthy diet, for example, might lead to
> > > serious illness.  which would be an example of rigid psychic structures
> > > contributing to disease. (and no, I'm not talking about cancer(s) -
> > > although I think the smoking-lung cancer connection is a crucial example
> > > here.)
> >
> > Ok, in this version I have no problems with this. But that is definitely not,
> > where this discussion started out.
>
> I know it's not where it started out! that's good, isn't it?
>
> dan h.99
> --
> http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
> http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
>
> Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
> Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
> Wa to nin o motte nashi,
> Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
>
> We who study Karate-do,
> Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
> With peace, perseverance and hard work,
> We will reach our goal without failure.