Healing Outside the Biomedical Paradigm

A few years ago, I started to develop extreme abdomen pains that consisted of a strong burning and gnawing sensation. After weeks of suffering with the pain, I decided to take a trip to my family doctor and explain to him my symptoms. After we spoke for a brief amount of time he wrote me a prescription for acid reflux medication. I had asked him if there were any alternatives to taking the medication because I felt uneasy with the side effects, but he said no and to go ahead with the medication. After a few weeks of using the medication, my symptoms were only getting worse, and I ended up having to go back. After being prescribed a number of different medications, I decided to take a different route. My mother had bought some literature on alternative medicine and natural ways of healing. As I delved into the book Trust Your Gut, by Gregory Plotnikoff and Mark Weisberg (2013) there was an extreme focus on finding one’s center. An individual’s mind and body makes up an integrated system, and when it goes out of balance it becomes dysfunctional. When an individual’s body becomes one, they stay centered. In the beginning, I was quite skeptical of alternative medicine and believed the only way to heal my health issue was through the biomedical model, with prescribed medication. However, as the weeks went by and I started to change my routine, diet, and take a number of natural healing remedies I found myself no longer in pain. My doctor’s notion of the prescribed medication being the only effective healing remedy was wrong. Andrew Weil, an MD who is a well-known advocate for complementary and alternative medicine points out that patients who embrace it are “patients who have been through conventional medicine, often many times over, have been tested to death, have tried many conventional therapies, and have found that they have not worked or have caused harm, or both, and it is that what motivates them to look for other kinds of treatment” (quoted in Winnick 2005; 51). The social construction of one’s health is deeply rooted in their cultural beliefs and practices. In the United States, the biomedical model continues to frame the language in which Americans engage issues of health. While the biomedical model retains its dominant position, individuals should consider the benefits of complementary and alternative medicine instead.

In the late 19th century, the rise of biomedicine brought a clear articulated framework for understanding health, disease, and remedies in the West. Biomedicine views the body objectively, and analyzes it in terms of its parts. In doing so, biomedicine reduces the multifaceted phenomenon of disease to a uniform set of physical symptoms and cures. As biomedicine gained political and economic fame in the West, it triumphed providers such as homeopaths, naturopaths, and chiropractors. Essentially, biomedicine came to dominate the world of medicine (Cohen 2006). The transformation of regular medicine into a commodity reflected the rise of industrialized capitalism. The corporate class found a new vehicle to employ their control over and filter their views down to the public. Additionally, biomedicine provided a clear cut emphasis of pathogens as the cause of disease, which neglected social origins of disease (Baer 2001). Essentially, biomedicine or “scientific medicine” has overrided the importance of the interconnectedness of mind and body. By removing the fact that the human being is an organic whole, biomedicine has led to the neglect, denial, and minimization of the mind’s ability to produce and remove symptoms, cure and create illness. In the biomedicine model, physicians work for large profit or nonprofit corporations under contracts that subject them to detailed oversight, and restrict their ability to exercise clinical judgement. Medicine has become a “big business” and healthcare has become a commodity (Goldstein 1999), leaving non-traditional medicine in the dust and the individual in the hands of greedy corporate profiteers.

By the mid-twentieth century, chiropractic, naturopathy, massage therapy, acupuncture, traditional oriental medicine, and herbal medicine resurged into popular interest. Complementary and alternative medicine began to gain recognition and expand dramatically. In 1998, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association publicized a forty-seven percent increase in total visits to complementary and alternative medical practitioners, from four hundred twenty seven million in 1990 to six hundred twenty nine million in 1997, with a total out of pocket expenditures relating to alternative therapies estimated at $27 billion in 1997. The study suggests complementary and alternative medicine is likely to increase and often times displace biomedicine or work alongside biomedical therapies. Additionally, the study implies complementary and alternative medical therapies being the first route of diagnosis and treatment for patients with chronic disease, back problems, anxiety, depression, and other conditions (Cohen 2006). Medical practices outside the conventional biomedicine model can often times be referred to as “quackery”, “unorthodox”, or “unconventional” therapies. Due to its lack of conformity with standards of the medical community, complementary and alternative medicine has become highly criticized. Yet, the above study proves individuals are seeking alternative routes of healing that are not scientifically proven.

The growth of complementary and alternative medicine alongside biomedicine has raised a number of questions about the nature of its evidence. The requests for controlled trial evidence by both the biomedical and political establishments to legitimize the assimilation of alternative medicine into the healthcare system can be analyzed as deeply political. While many studies on alternative medicine have incessantly shown to work no better than the placebo, many doctors and patients admit that alternative medicine does a significant job in making patients well at lower costs than mainstream healthcare (Barry 2005). Individuals who are mostly economically secure and highly educated have inherited a heightened skepticism about the biomedical model. This skepticism is highlighted by Goldstein (1999) reflecting on patients, stating physicians and other medical personnel in medical settings have

Not listened to them or believed what they said; withheld knowledge, lied to them, treated them without their consent; not warned of risks and negative effects of treatment; overcharged them; experimented on them…; treated them poorly because of their race, sexual preference, age, or disability; offered them tranquilizers or moral advice instead of medical care or useful help from community resources…; administered treatments which were unnecessarily mutilating and too extreme for their problem, or which resulted in permanent disability or even death; prescribed drugs which hooked them, sickened them, changed their entire lives; performed operations which they later found were unnecessary, and removed organs which were in no way diseased; and abused them sexually (P.35).

In other words, the biomedical model has remained a tool to promote social control and suppression to specific groups by the corporate class. The skepticism and criticisms of mainstream medicine has remained a key driver in promoting complementary and alternative medicine and looking at the biomedical system with a microscope. Criticism of medicine as an institution in Western society is now commonly articulated within the government and corporate sectors of the economy. With this in mind, it is key to look outside the mechanistic, technologically, reductionist Western medicine. Throughout the world, many cultures, including China and India have been extremely successful in the use of alternative medicine. Each of the major systems within alternative medicine holds the belief about the importance of individuality in assessing and treating illness. The benefits of these healing approaches extend beyond taking care of chronic diseases and look to strengthen the individual and their health.

In India, Ayurvedic medicine is a traditional Indian system of healing that incorporates diet, exercise, meditation, massage, herbs, lights, and breathing techniques to treat illness by restoring inner harmony and body, mind and spirit. In the United States, Deepak Chopra, is the best known practitioner of Ayurveda. Chopra states, “An Ayurvedic physician is more interested in the patient he sees before him than his disease. He recognizes that what makes up the person is experience, sorrows, joys, fleeting seconds of trauma, and long hours of nothing special at all. The minutes of life silently accumulate, and like grains of sand deposited by a river, the minutes can eventually pile up into a hidden formation that crops above the surface as disease.” (P.47). The biomedical model fails to look at aspects that make up a person and their social experiences. Similarly, Traditional Chinese Medicine is a three thousand year old system that combines acupuncture, diet, massage, herbs, and other treatments to restore and enhance an individual’s health. Traditional Chinese Medicine views problems as reflecting the character of the individual. They openly reject specific symptoms and examine an individual’s “yin” and “yang” instead (Goldstein 1999). In medicine, the “yin” and “yang” are essential for understanding signs and symptoms.

As one physician states, “I believe only what I can see…” (Mizrachi, Shuval, Gross, 2005). Biomedicine has gained an autonomous position in Western society because of its physical, visible, and predictable evidence. The notion of boundaries are utilized to maintain solidarity in the sociology of science, knowledge, and professions. Boundaries allow specific individuals or groups to secure their autonomous position, gain legitimacy, and expand their power. In the biomedical model, there is only one science. Alternative practitioners have been established as outsiders by biomedical practitioners because they challenge orthodox medicine. Biomedical practitioners have picked up an ignorant trait of American exceptionalism and have not realized that the biomedical model is failing. In order to address the root causes of America’s medical system failure, it is important to look at what other cultures like China and India are doing right and that is the integration of alternative medicine.

The biomedical, “regular medicine” model in America became a popular perspective so much that it developed buildings, schools, hospitals, and a strong professional organization. Yet, by the 1960’s, the “golden age of doctoring” came to a close. Individuals soon came to recognize a “healthcare crisis”. By the 1970’s, healthcare costs skyrocketed, insurance companies failed to protect its clients, and conventional care had its shortcomings. During this time complementary and alternative medicine pushed its way into public view. Individuals started to question the biomedical model and its objectives. By the 1990’s and continuing today, an invasion of corporate control in the doctor-patient relationship began to dominate and spread economic reform (Winnick 2005). Historically, United States medical schools did not teach alternative medicines. Typically, mainstream medicine has had the ability to accrue power, prestige, authority, and financial rewards because of its scientific rationality. What is taught during medical school and practiced on patients is assumed to work (Goldstein 1999). Due to the control the corporate class has, individuals fail to look past mainstream medicine. The core elements of alternative medicine presents the chance to understand illness differently than mainstream medicine. Alternative medicine looks to not “explain” an illness, but gather a new sense of possibilities to achieve health, healing, and happiness for an individual. In doing so, alternative medicine remains a healing approach that extends beyond the prevention of major disease and illnesses. Alternative medicine does a much better job at making patients happy and healthy at lower costs.

The evidence of lifestyle and attitude changes are beginning to build up and have an enormous impact on individual’s health. Instilling healthy attitudes and feelings has an endless amount of possibilities in fixing an individual’s health. By healing outside the biomedical paradigm, individuals have the opportunity to gain a deeper relationship with their mind and body. While changing an individual’s outlook on their medical paradigm may seem difficult, numerous countries have been successful in healing without the harsh, expensive treatments of the biomedical model. I am not suggesting that one should completely do away with the biomedical model, but definitely look into the success stories of alternative medicine. Given what we know about alternative medicine, there are specific areas of the biomedical model that need to drastically change. One being the amount of control the corporate class has over the large mass of people. One’s health should not be a commodity that focuses on expensive procedures, medications, and tests.

The biomedical model has become so much “Americanized” that it reflects America’s beliefs of individualism

and personal responsibility. In alternative medicine, while there is a notion that a person is responsible for accepting the reality and dealing with their disease, it is not individualized. In other words, alternative medicine seeks to build “identity” and “community”. Alternative medicine practitioners use a variety of interpretations that does not pinpoint the cause of the disease or illness on the patient. All in all, alternative medicine aims to create a transformational identity for the patient. Many patients resent quick physician visits, pills, tests, and technology (Winnick 2005). As Linda Johnston, a well-known homeopath, writes, “Modern medicine doesn’t bother speculating about the unknown initiating cause of symptoms… Doctors usually want to know just enough to enable them to eliminate the symptoms… these efforts seem beneficial to the patient, however, the disease causing the symptoms has not been cured, it has only been blocked… similar to putting a dam across a river.” (Goldstein 1999 p.46). In other words, unlike alternative medicine, the biomedical model does not seem really fix the problem. Often times with its harsh medication it produces more side effects. Alternative medicine should become more integrated in daily use. It has not only been productive in healing individuals, but helpful in preventing disease and illness. Western medicine was created to meet the needs of a capitalist society and is maintained today. Alternative medicine may not seem “normal” to Americans, but it is centered on recognizing an individual’s experiences rather than looking at their body objectively and in terms of its parts. It may seem difficult to integrate alternative medicine more heavily in the United States, but in light of the problems with the United States’ healthcare system it may be useful.

Bibliography

Baer, Hans A. 2001. Biomedicine And Alternative Healing Systems in America: Issues of Class,

Race, Ethnicity, and Gender. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Barry, Christine Ann. 2006. “The Role of Evidence in Alternative Medicine: Contrasting

Biomedical and Anthropological Approaches.” Social Science & Medicine 62(11):2646–57.

Cohen, Michael H. 2003. Future Medicine: Ethical Dilemmas, Regulatory Challenges, and

Therapeutic Pathways to Health Care and Healing in Human Transformation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Goldstein, Michael S. 1999. Alternative Health Care: Medicine, Miracle, or Mirage?

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Mizrachi, Nissim, Judith T. Shuval, and Sky Gross. 2005. “Boundary At Work: Alternative

Medicine in Biomedical Settings.” Sociol Health & Illness Sociology of Health and Illness 27(1):20–43.

Plotnikoff, Gregory and Mark B. Weisberg. 2013. Trust Your Gut: Get Lasting Healing from IBS

and Other Chronic Digestive Problems without Drugs. Conari Press.

Winnick, Terri A. 2005. “From Quackery To ‘Complementary’ Medicine: The American

Medical Profession Confronts Alternative Therapies.” Social Problems 52(1):38–61.

Images:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32219/title/Alternative-Medicines/

http://www.healthconspiracyzone.com/the-evolution-of-alternative-medicine-the-atlantic/