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?

-------------------------

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.

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

I'm well aware that there are some groups of alternative practitioners that are licensed and regulated -- however, there are also many, many quacks and hucksters "out there" who are able to get away with presenting themselves to the public as some sort of "expert" or "authority" despite having little or no training/education/whatever, simply by avoiding a few protected titles, and sell whatever sort of nonsense they want to to anyone gullible enough to listen to them -- and some of the "treatments" they sell can be dangerous or even deadly.

I'm well aware that there are some groups of alternative practitioners that are licensed and regulated -- however, there are also many, many quacks and hucksters "out there" who are able to get away with presenting themselves to the public as some sort of "expert" or "authority" despite having little or no training/education/whatever, simply by avoiding a few protected titles, and sell whatever sort of nonsense they want to to anyone gullible enough to listen to them -- and some of the "treatments" they sell can be dangerous or even deadly.

This is ABSOLUTELY true. Like with many fields, there are niches that people can get around....take a one week course and call themselves a Professional XYZ, etc. However, their capabilities are extremely limited and they are not legally allowed to perform much more than colonics, green tea diets, etc.

ND (Naturopathic Doctors) are REAL Doctors who went to school and have to live up to high standards. These are not usually the ones in the newspapers for scam/offenses. I have had very positive experiences with them.

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

I would attribute most of the effect of homeopathic medicine to placebo effect but herbal remedies are very powerful, potent things. Ask Socrates if hemlock has a placebo effect. Nutrition has also proven to be extremely valuable. I think allopathic and naturopathic remedies complement each other and I think everyone benefits when we open our eyes to that. NIH has an institute devoted to alternative medicine and obviously they set the bar for what is scientific and what is not.

I don't think scientists or doctors would disagree that hemlock is deadly. In fact, scientists have studied it and isolated the compounds in it that are responsible. Also, we have a nutritionist that works with the doctors in our hospital as part of western medicine. (On the other hand, I'll believe that nutrition can treat schizophrenia, as some would have us believe, when there's scientific proof of it.)

Just because a therapy is alternative doesn't mean it doesn't work. It's great that NIH is using the scientific method to evaluate some of these therapies. Western medicine uses maggots and leeches now because studies show they actually work. I wish there was more money available to test some of these therapies. That said, I wish the public would put their faith in science and not in BS. I don't think there is a single legitimate study that uses good science that proves that homeopathic medicines work. Even the rationale about why they are suppose to work does not make lsense to me.

I totally agree about homeopathics. IMO they are not in the same ballpark as legit alternative treatments. The rationale is ridiculous.

Specializes in Geriatrics, Home Health.

My main beef with "alternative" medicine is that there are too few regulations and too many quacks preying on desperate people. Aryuveda, Chinese medicine, herbalism, and supplements are completely unregulated.

For example, take chiropractic. Multiple studies have shown that it can be very effective for musculoskeletal problems. My father has osteoporosis, and my sister has scoliosis. Chiropractic treatment has helped them a lot. However, I've seen too many chiropractors who say they can cure anything, including ADD, asthma, allergies, and cancer.

I tried St. John's Wart for depression. It gave me a rash, but didn't do anything for the depression. I finally improved after I started taking a prescription antidepressant. I've found that if you tell non-believers in Western medicine that an herbal remedy didn't work for you, they assume that you must have done something wrong, or you didn't "believe" enough. If I said I was allergic to penicillin, no one would say it was because I didn't believe in it.

My local PBS affiliate frequently reruns the "Scientific Frontiers" show about alternative medicines. It talks a lot about the placebo effect, and the fact that something has to trigger it. It was fascinating, and it strengthened my skepticism about alternative treatments. Basically, a lot of alternative therapies work because people believe they will work.

Specializes in Family Practice, ICU.

The main thing I'm learning in nursing school is that while some of the alternative medicine has been proven helpful for some, very few approaches have held up in clinical trials.

I think there are a number of reasons that people tend to hate on Western medicine.

1. It's the status quo. Some people gain a sense of superiority by being non-conformist, and have this attitude of "enlightenment", thinking they know more than the thousands of qualified pharmacists, physicians and scientists who've run legitimate critical trials on these drugs and treatments. Some people have a real conspiracy theorist mentality and think they know more than the people who have dedicated years and years to studying and research.

2. The controversial "business" aspect to the pharmaceutical industry. Some folks think if something makes money, it's inherently evil (i.e. socialists). They fail to realize that if a business is unprofitable, it will cease to exist. Naturally greed needs to be curbed, but money has to be made to fund R & D.

3. The earthy / vegetarian / green / holistic approach is appealing to some.

There are a million reasons to like Western medicine. For one, we have a longer life span thanks to Western medicine. So do all the non-Westerners that come here when they need it. People are coming here to get the care that their countries fail to deliver. Does that say anything at all? As usual, we Americans don't understand how good we have it. We're spoiled, plain and simple. We breed this culture of "Armchair Authorities".

I'm not necessarily bagging on alternative medicine, just from what I've read in class, it's effectiveness is not always validated by evidence. Western medicine, while not always yielding the optimal results for every case, has evidence behind it.

Its a joke when I hear people claim "I dont trust big pharma companies" but then go to a natural supplement store and spend hundreds or thousands on herbs that go to a "big herb company" instead of big pharma.

Do these people really believe that all these alternative medicine companies are in it just for altruistic reasons? Talk about being gullible/naive.

Alternative medicine is just as big a business as "big pharma" is. Alternative medicine companies pay their CEOs millions of dollars and have public stock ownership the same way the regular pharma industry works. So dont give me this BS about how you "trust" alternative medicine companies but dont trust big pharma. Its the SAME industry!

I don't think scientists or doctors would disagree that hemlock is deadly. In fact, scientists have studied it and isolated the compounds in it that are responsible. Also, we have a nutritionist that works with the doctors in our hospital as part of western medicine. (On the other hand, I'll believe that nutrition can treat schizophrenia, as some would have us believe, when there's scientific proof of it.)

Just because a therapy is alternative doesn't mean it doesn't work. It's great that NIH is using the scientific method to evaluate some of these therapies. Western medicine uses maggots and leeches now because studies show they actually work. I wish there was more money available to test some of these therapies. That said, I wish the public would put their faith in science and not in BS. I don't think there is a single legitimate study that uses good science that proves that homeopathic medicines work. Even the rationale about why they are suppose to work does not make lsense to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18208598?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19794360?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748229?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245705?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561261?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_R

and these were found on PubMed (which we should have a link to, here at allnurses) under "gluten schizphrenia"

i would think there might be more under the more general heading of nutrition....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18208598?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19794360?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748229?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245705?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561261?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_R

and these were found on PubMed (which we should have a link to, here at allnurses) under "gluten schizphrenia"

i would think there might be more under the more general heading of nutrition....

So, I can only pull up three of the full articles (even after using my University's library....my school doesn't carry a subscription to psychiatria danubina).

One is a case study on one patient from 1986 (and in spite of it's advanced age, I only found three folks who had sited this paper), another is a double-blind study with an N of 24 pts....and they concluded that removing gluten didn't impact these patients.

I don't feel these support the conclusion that a gluten free diet is an effective treatment for Schizophrenia.

I do go crazy for some biscuits straight out of the oven, if that proves anything...

+ Add a Comment