|
|
Not surprisingly, the United States spends more money on health care than any nation on the
planet. However, sixty percent of people polled by the Journal of the American Medical
Association are seeking alternative health care. In 2000, the World Health Organization
ranked the US as 37th in the world in the care of chronic diseases, just behind Costa Rica.
One only has to look around us to see the walking wounded consumers of the prescription
drug economy.
Doctors aren't to blame. High overhead, led by the cost of malpractice insurance,
economically forces doctors to assembly-line patients at the rate one every ten minutes.
They must diagnose, categorize and prescribe in this time. The insurance companies that pay
their bills only pay for "approved" treatments, and if the doctor is brave enough to
recommend an "unapproved" treatment, it is not covered by their malpractice insurance. They
have little time to read medical journals, and rarely get any more information on new drug
programs than that which is supplied by their pharmaceutical reps.
Let's compare the overall philosophies of the two health systems: allopathic (modern
medicine as it is practiced today) and naturopathy.
In many ways, the allopathic system is a linguistic construct. It is about naming and
treating of diseases. You look at the symptoms and signs of a disease and if it varies from
what is currently known or named, it gets a new name and is classified accordingly.
Treatment is usually a chemical or physical alteration of the body's physiology so that the
symptom is altered and hopefully a disease state is contained.
The method of determining an "approved" protocol is very intensive–that is, in theory, of
course, assuming that a company follows legal parameters–because we are dealing with toxic
chemicals, poisons. The first test a drug must pass is that it has to prove toxicity by
demonstrating how much of the drug will kill 50% of a population. It is called an LD50
rating or Lethal Dose 50%. A product that has no toxicity simply cannot be a drug. Each
drug can be a "cure" for a single disease if it can demonstrate a 15% effectiveness.
If your cholesterol is high, for instance, in order to prevent heart disease you take a
drug that inhibits an enzyme in the liver that is necessary for the production of
cholesterol. But that is not all it does. It damages muscles and inhibits CoQ-10 production.
These are called side effects. The drug also increases the toxic load of the liver,
whose job it is to rid the body of toxins. If the body cannot rid the toxins, it surrounds
them with fat and water and stores them away from the vital systems.
Herein lies what I feel is a flaw in the allopathic system. If all drugs are poisons, then
it follows that the more drugs you give to a person, the less they will be able to deal
with the overall toxic load, and the sicker they will become.
If the allopathic community is limited by the economics of insurance companies, the
naturopathic community is limited by legislation. A naturopath legally cannot diagnose,
cure, prevent, mitigate, or treat any disease or medical condition. Diseases are legally
proprietary to the allopathic profession. For instance, believe it or not, a naturopath
cannot say that water will cure dehydration. Water is a natural substance, and dehydration
is legally a medical condition. No natural substance can legally be called a cure for
a disease.
Fortunately, this linguistic limitation is only a minor inconvenience, because the
naturopath deals only with varying degrees of health within the body. Instead of "fighting"
disease, he/she helps the client strengthen the body. A typical course of action with
a naturopath would be to detoxify the system, eliminate harmful substances from the diet,
balance unbalanced systems, and start an exercise program. Of course, the naturopath would
help the client with strategies to make these changes.
By comparison, if a person is diagnosed with diabetes by a doctor, the doctor may prescribe
insulin and suggest that the person eat less sugar. If a client of the naturopath has
blood-sugar imbalances, the naturopath might help the client eliminate all foods that
add to insulin resistance. He/she might help the person detox the liver to increase the
production of bile that helps digest food, and to lighten the load on the pancreas
to produce enzymes. He/she would help the person digest food better to further lessen
the load on the pancreas. Likewise, he/she would educate the client as to which foods
contain nutrients that would help the cells recognize insulin, so that the body would
be more efficient at transporting glucose from the blood into the cells where it is needed.
The naturopath looks at health as a continuum. While the allopath sees health as the absence
of symptoms, the naturopath sees the absence of symptoms as the center of the scale. Lower
on the scale would be discomfort, dis-ease, disease and death. Higher on the scale would
be wellness, fitness, and optimal health. You would not be considered well if you have
intestinal discomfort, headaches, insomnia, low-energy, or foggy thinking. Rather, a
person would be considered well if they had plenty of energy, was optimistic, happy, and
clear of mind and thought. Many people are convinced that this state is unachievable
or too difficult to obtain. In fact it is neither, but the state is rare. A person must
change what they eat and how they think. Some people are addicted to what they eat.
Fortunately, there are methods that help the motivated person make the transition.
Another difference between the two systems is the relationship between the patient/client
and the practitioner. The allopathic/patient relationship is that of authority
figure/benefactor. The doctor knows, because they went to medical school and you didn't.
They have a license and you don't. The patient's research is called "listening to Dr.
Internet." The doctors are the ones who are responsible for your health because they
know better than you.
On the other hand, the relationship between the naturopath and the client is a partnership.
The naturopath is a coach who guides and educates the client. The responsibility for
getting more healthy lies with the client, for only the client can truly make the decision
to become healthier and ultimately take action. Naturopaths encourage client research
and often learn from their clients.
While I admit that I have a bias, I also admit that each system has its place. When it comes
to emergency/trauma care, allopathic physicians are heroically unrivaled. However, when
it comes to chronic pain, discomfort, and dis-ease, the naturopath is the clear winner.
You may not get the instant relief of, say, a pain pill or a gall bladder removal. But
on the other hand, you will not have poisoned your body and you will still have your
gall bladder. True healing takes time.
A person must reach the point where they are tired of feeling bad and are so frustrated
that they proclaim, "I'm not going to take it any more." It is at this point that healing
begins.
© 2006 Chip Engelmann
|
