The Public's Doubts About "Western Medicine"

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Someone I known mentioned that she had dropped out of nursing school because she didn't believe in Western medicine. I'm trying to get a handle on what this is all about and I just started reading this book Denialism by Michael Spector. Personally, I don't blindly put my faith in Western medicine, and I realize that many things are done without solid rationales or evidence or for liability reasons, but certainly there is more scientific evidence for these practices than for alternative medicine. And let's face it, I'm not going to a chiro if I've got leukemia and I don't think acupuncture is going to help with a severed arms. What's up with this the haters? Does anyone have insight into this? Your opinions?

Specializes in L&D, QI, Public Health.
But at least with physicians, there is a board, regulations, code of ethics, etc., and poor quality practitioners can eventually get disciplined (although I'm well aware that doesn't happen with physicians nearly enough!) With "alternative" practitioners and treatments, it's the "Wild West" -- no rules, no consequences, no nothin'.

Wow, you are misinformed. First of all, let's not lump all alternative health practioners together. We're doing a disservice by lumping them all into one ball of wax.

Acupuncuturists(sp) have a board and they are licensed. Chiropractors are licensed. Dieticians and some nutritionists are licensed. I'm not sure, but massage therapists may even be licensed. Therapists are licensed. Naturopathic doctors (They are doctors and 'alternative', therefore not mutually exclusive) are licensed.

And yes, there are plenty of health practitioners who are not licensed. At the end of the day, most people pick doctors either out of convenience or word of mouth. You're going to do the same with a non-licensed health practitioner. I think word of mouth would carry more weight thann convenience in this case.

And just because you're not licensed doesn't mean you're not certifed by a body that has a code of ethics. People just need to do their research and find out what's important to them.

If there's good science behind it, I'm all for it, whatever it is. If it's unproven, I'm skeptical. If there's good science disproving it, it's junk.

Specializes in L&D, QI, Public Health.
I have to disagree, zahryia. If you believe there is such a thing as truth or facts, then the scientific method is a proven methodology for getting there. It wasn't created for Western medicine and it exists outside of it, and the scientific method could be used to determine the value of alternative medicines and therapies (if money were available for the studies). What is there outside of the scientific method for determining the effectiveness of any kind of treatment or therapy? I suppose there is "patient satisfaction" but then it's "for entertainment purposes only" which I once saw printed on a paper used for "ear coning/candling."

So, you're telling me that the scientific method is appropriate for all forms of alternative medicine? How is that possible when scientists don't even know all the constituents are contained in herbs? The same genus and species may have a different constituent percentage based on where it's grown. The same plant may have different actions on how its prepared (powdered versus tincture versus tea, etc). How do we ensure that the dosage of a plant given in a particular form is in fact the equivalent as the pharmaceutical in any given study?

The purpose of a scientific model/study is to 'synthecize' a scenario, using a prescribed dose in a prescribed setting to a prescribed set of people. It's way easier to do that when you're working with a synthetic product. It's way harder to do when you're working with a natural product.

Again, I'm not opposed to clinical trials or studies, but I can put them into perpsective. I also value a more subjective, unscientific method. In that type of method/model, I hypothesize that many pharmaceuticals would fail.

I think it comes down to if you're the type of person that always value a lab value over how a patient 'feels' and yes 'satisfaction'. God forbid, we assess those things.

But at least with physicians, there is a board, regulations, code of ethics, etc., and poor quality practitioners can eventually get disciplined (although I'm well aware that doesn't happen with physicians nearly enough!) With "alternative" practitioners and treatments, it's the "Wild West" -- no rules, no consequences, no nothin'.

Not true. Naturopaths and osteopaths have their own board, code of ethics, etc.

I can see your point, zahryia. If the ultimate goal is to make a particular patient feel better, then science hardly plays into any of it. Trial and error works and only the patient's experience is important. But maybe your goals include things like extending a patient's life. Then science becomes important.

Specializes in L&D, QI, Public Health.
But isn't the reason you're taking "herbs" for their pharmacological value?

I guess I don't see a lot of difference between taken that pharmacological substance in it's original form, vs. taking it as a purified drug. A "druggy" either way. There's just less control over what's in the herbs.

I wouldn't call taking a pharmaceutical a 'purified' form, but I get what you're saying.

And let's also remember that food IS medicine (or at least can be). I find it interesting that people raise an eyebrow when you take herbs for therapeutic or heath enhancing effects than when we eat herbs as food. Are you a 'druggy if you eat oregano? What about using turmeric as a spice? Both have strong physiological actions. Immune modulating, antiviral, aromatic digestive, etc.

Specializes in L&D, QI, Public Health.
I can see your point, zahryia. If the ultimate goal is to make a particular patient feel better, then science hardly plays into any of it. Trial and error works and only the patient's experience is important. But maybe your goals include things like extending a patient's life. Then science becomes important.

True, but even science acknowlegdes that how a patient feels has an impact on longevity.

ETA: If you're talking about extending a person's life in an acute situation, I already acknowleged that I embrace western medicine in that situation. If it's a chronic or a disease prevention model, I firmly believe that many alternative modalities have a place in this.

Science shows over and over that placebos "work" (in some sense). That's why they do double blind studies to exclude this effect.

I wouldn't call taking a pharmaceutical a 'purified' form, but I get what you're saying.

And let's also remember that food IS medicine (or at least can be). I find it interesting that people raise an eyebrow when you take herbs for therapeutic or heath enhancing effects than when we eat herbs as food. Are you a 'druggy if you eat oregano? What about using turmeric as a spice? Both have strong physiological actions. Immune modulating, antiviral, aromatic digestive, etc.

Food can be absolutely be medicine, or adversely affect a medication ( Foods high in Vit. K and coumadin therapy comes to mind). I guess I consider why it's being taken. So as I said earlier, I dropped a med to control my UC and instead added daily high quality, high live culture yogurt and a weekly probiotic. Now the yogurt is obviously food, but I'm taking it for medicinal reasons. My personal rule of thumb is why is it being consumed....if the oregano you mentioned is to season a yummy home made spaghetti sauce, then while it might be part of a healthy diet, I don't consider it medicinal. However if someone is using the spaghetti sauce as a vehicle for their daily dose of XX amount of oregano...well, it is medicinal. I'm also guessing (and therefore can obviously be completely wrong) that medicinal doses of things like oregano, might be a good bit higher than typical spaghetti sauce consumption.

I was more addressing the fact that I've found it common for folks who are using herbs and supplements to not consider themselves taking "drugs" because they're in a natural form (with the underlying belief that since it's "natural" it's better for a person). My favorite comeback to that generally includes a conversation about the wonders of orificenic :D

One of my favorite non-fiction stuff to read is research by ethno-botanists. One of the things these folks do is find plants that are used by different cultures as medicine and try to isolate the active ingredients. Fascinating stuff :)

Natural isn't benign, supplements aren't benign. They can have just as much ability to do great good and great damage as "drugs" can. And, it might sometimes be easier for damage to occur, since many don't look at these substances in that way. So they might not adhere as strongly to a recommended dosage or might not mention consumption to their PCP, to name just two ways things can go amiss.

Specializes in L&D, QI, Public Health.
Science shows over and over that placebos "work" (in some sense). That's why they do double blind studies to exclude this effect.

I had to chuckle over this. I love how when alternative medicine are dismissed as placebos when they work. Well, point me to those studies, because if I can use a 'placebo' that will make me feel better, cost me less, and has less side effects, then I'm willing to use it. I don't care what you call it.

I'm going to end with a question for you, cuz I don't want to hog this thread with just my comments.

If growing up, you had a grandmother that gave one of your siblings and/or cousins a cup of hot tea with honey, lemon and herbs whenever one of you or your family members got the flu or a cold. In every situation, that cup of tea worked like a charm. Do you mean to tell me you wouldn't use that same cup of tea on yourself or one of your children just because there has never been a clinical trial on it?

If the answer is no, let's say you were in a blizzard like many in the Mid-Atlantic were a couple of weeks ago and you didn't have any cough syrup or OTC meds left and you couldn't get to a store and you just happened to have the tea available to you. You still wouldn't use the tea just because?

I ask this question to demonstrate this is how many 'alternative' medicines get passed down. People are able to see the effects with their own eyes. There is only anecdotal 'evidence'. There's no science. But it still works. Is it any less effective because it will NEVER go through a clinical trial? No.

And that's a wrap for me. Either you're open or you're not.

I drink tea when I have a cold because I like the taste and I know it makes me feel better. But, I don't expect it to cure my cold. And I don't consider it medicine or alternative medicine.

However, I wouldn't buy homeopathic remedies or vitamin supplements for which there are studies that prove they aren't any more effective than a placebo.

I conduct my own scientific experiments on my body now for the mostpart...not doctors and pharmacists. LOL :-p

+ Add a Comment