This is another perfect segue to a topic that was introduced on this board by Tony DeCoteau some time last year. In that discussion he asked, “what method should we use to determine smartness”? It was one that was asked in the context of his experience with sea-sickness and the application of his friend technique for avoidance which was jumping over board and taking a “duck” in the sea - which by the way, did not work in his case.
The relationship between Physicians and their use of “synthetic medication” and practitioners of holistic/alternative medicine has always been a concern to the point of contention in the health care industry. The former, which has the basis of scientific studies supported by clinical trials is and will continue to be the dominant and acceptable practice, no doubt. The latter, however, is documented in memory as a continuance of our cultural practices that works but one that is slowly dying or becoming obsolete. Still, there are benefits to be had by this approach but they should be controlled and synchronized in a manner that gives the Physician access to and full knowledge of what is being used, always remembering that we should default to the side of Science when necessary.
Take for example:
We have all had experiences with the local use of herbal medication/remedies but we did not have the knowledge of determining what their ingredients/compositions were or the interaction between their chemical components and their impact on our bodies.
Our scale of measurement was limited to “a little bit of this” with “a little bit of that” with “some of the other”; sometimes with a combination of using all three at the same time. Still we can argue that with this bit of tertiary information, we managed to control our health, sometimes to the point of arguing - albeit falsely - that we probably were healthier. Unbeknownst to us, we never thought of the statistical measurements and indicators of good health (obesity rate, life expectancy rate, mortality rate and etc.) as we have today and we explained-away death as being one of “natural causes” all the time while La Qua smiles. Also, we were never prepared to deal with the more complex issues of illness which now relies almost exclusively on science.
There is a school of thought that argues that the advancement in modern medication is a result of our deviation from the practices and dictates of “nature” (baring any genetic predisposition) which inevitably has compromised our immune system to the point of developing that reliance. But the counter argument bears witness to the ultimate measurement of life expectancy as the denominator for measuring good health and contributes that factor to science.
My say is,
Living longer because of modern medicines is a relative statistical term which does not necessarily mean that the quality of life one lives is worth living. Plants, herbal extracts and concoctions have moved out of the back-doors of the old Apothecaries and have become widely acceptable in the practice of medicine. And I have yet to confess to my darling Mother that it was her bundle of bush from Grenada that had cured me some years ago when I was stricken with some form of malady.
I, Gouyaveman The First say,
Bush Tea is Tea
|
|