Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.Criticisms of modern medicine is a discussion of what is wrong with conventional medicine as we know it today.
Historical Divisions of Conventional Medicine
In the beginning of the 17th century, medical practice in England was divided into three distinct groups: the physicians, the surgeons, and the apothecaries. Physicians were part of the upper-class and usually held a university degree. Surgeons, in contrast, were typically apprenticed and hospital trained and often served the dual role of barber-surgeon. Apothecaries also learned their roles prescribing, making, and selling medicines, through apprenticeships and sometimes within hospitals.
After 1750 in Europe, the practice of medicine was growing increasingly medication-centered. At this time, prescription of medications was the expected outcome of medical consultation.[1] During this historic period these medications were prescribed both by physicians and apothecaries. In Europe, the practice of surgery had clearly separated from the practice of conventional medicine during the Middle Ages. Hence, Hahnemann when he coined the term allopathy was responding to physicians and apothecaries who prescribed medications like calomel [mercury chloride] and those who used mercury based salves rather than against the barber-surgeons of the period who engaged in blood letting. Apothecaries currently cannot legally prescribe medications.
Hence, modern criticisms of medicine generally are in reference only to allopathy (i.e., physicians), but not in reference to surgeons or pharmacists.
Criticisms:
The history of allopathy revolves around the development of the external agent model of disease.
Alternative practitioners claim that allopathy's success in treating disease caused by disease agents is coming to an end almost as quickly as it started during the 1930s, as antibiotics are becoming less and less effective. They assert that the disease model is a primitive model of disease, also, explains why allopathy is unable to effectively deal with lifestyle diseases which are not caused by external disease agents.
The external agent model of disease is often referred to simply as the biomedical model of disease which generally looks for single, very specific causes for diseases, with correspondingly specific treatments, like antibiotics for infections, that are expected to be effective for that disease in most people, under most conditions.
The allopathic biomedical model assumes that all disease is caused by a structural anatomic or biochemical abnormality. The allopath's responsibility is limited to finding the abnormality to be cured. But without an easily discovered abnormality the simplistic biomedical model often proves to be ineffective. The alternative model does not require that a disease's cause be understood.
Allopathy is said to treat the disease.
When you treat the disease, either a high-tech diagnosis is made with the expensive tools of modern medical science or a diagnosis has been made based upon a physical examination of the patient. It would also include taking the medical history of the patient.
Practitioners of alternative medicine are said to treat the patient and do not necessarily identify any specific disease. A case-study is taken that ascertains what the patient has been doing wrong because all illness is assumed to be the fault of the patient. Further, the natural doctor will usually try to regulate the life of their patients (for example, their diet) before using any nutritional supplements or herbs.
In short, "treating the patient" emphasizes the behavior of the patient and is premised upon the complex biopsychosocial model of health encompassing the mind-body connection.
Allopathy is said to be too impersonal
Allopathy relies increasingly on new expensive technology that is centered in the hospital to make the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plans for their patients. This can result in high costs and assembly line medicine.
Allopathy's primary mode of treatment is said to be prescription medication.
Historically in Europe, the practice of surgery is separated from the practice of medicine while in America the separation is a little more muddled. But, historically speaking allopathy was coined as a response against physicians and apothecaries who prescribed medications rather than against the surgeons. After 1750 in Europe, the practice of medicine was growing increasingly medication-centered. During this period, prescription of medication was the expected outcome of medical consultation.[1] Hence, the only method of treatment practiced by physicians that is still currently in use today from this Age of Heroic Medicine is the prescription of medications.
Allopathy is said to prefer to use heroic medicine
Allopathy has historically had a marked preference for heroic medicine. Heroic medicine is any medicine or method of treatment that makes people suffer, get sick, get weak and run down and/or die. Further, physicians often prefer to start off with these bold and daring treatments.
Heroic medicine, in short, has a high potential for harming the patient.
References
- Porter, Roy. The Greatest Benefit To Mankind: A Medical History Of Humanity. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998, page 268.
External links
- History of Allopathic Medicine by T. Schab
- John D. Rockefeller's Bastard Child - Allopathic Medicine
- The Princeton Review - Allopathic Medicine
- Natural Health Mailing List
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Criticisms of modern medicine."
| 1. Bibliography |
Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.