How To Be A Holistic Patient

`Holistic' (or, as it sometimes spelt, wholistic) medicine has, for several decades, been growing in theoretical popularity. Many alternative and some orthodox health care professionals describe themselves as `holistic' practitioners.

But they aren't.

Most journalists inaccurately assume that the word is a synonym for `alternative' or `complementary' medicine.

But it isn't.

The word `holistic' was first introduced in 1926 by the South African philosopher and statesman Jan Christian Smuts. He suggested that the whole human being is much more than (and quite different to) a collection of physical or emotional parts. Even in those days, it seems, there must have been doctors parading up and down hospital wards referring to the `liver' in the end bed and the `case of pancreatitis' in the third bed on the left.

The word and the concept lay more or less forgotten until the 1970s when the growth of high technology medicine led to a revolution among patients who felt that aggressive, interventionist medicine wasn't entirely satisfactory. Suddenly there was a feeling that specialisation and fragmentation were not all they had been cracked up to be.

In practical terms the use of the word `holistic' meant, in theory at least, that instead of regarding patients as sick kidneys or hearts health care professionals would try to meet the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs of their patients by dealing with social problems as well as physical ones and by using natural healing methods as well as modern, pharmacological or surgical techniques.

In short the word `holistic' was intended to describe an attitude. An attitude which can be just as well followed by an orthodox trained doctor as by an alternative practitioner. A general practitioner in a busy city health centre can be `holistic' in his approach just as easily as can a herbalist or acupuncturist working from a back bedroom.


Good news for patients
There is no doubt that a `holistic' approach to medical care is extremely good news for patients. When followed properly it means that every illness can be treated with a `pick'n'mix' approach - choosing whichever aspects of orthodox and alternative medicine are most likely to be effective, and least likely to produce side effects, and treating and taking full notice of all aspects of the individual's being.

In many illnesses there is no point in treating what is wrong with the body unless you also treat what is wrong with the mind and it seems to me remarkable that a modern doctor will treat the body of a patient who is suffering from high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome or asthma but ignore the mind, when it is now established beyond doubt that in so many illnesses the physical symptoms are produced by mental turmoil of one sort or another. It is equally bizarre and, in truth, unscientific, for an osteopath to treat a patient's back and ignore his mind. The advantages of a truly `holistic' approach are colossal not only because `holistic' medicine offers a chance to use the best and avoid the worst but also because different types of treatment can, when used together, have a synergistic effect. A genuinely `holistic' approach may use a modern drug, a relaxation technique and a type of massage to tackle a single collection of symptoms.

But although in theory the word `holistic' implies an admirable change in attitude there is, sadly, little evidence that practitioners really understand what the word means or how it should be applied in practice.

It would be nice to think that everyone could find a `holistic' practitioner to look after them. But don't hold your breath. You've about as much chance of striking oil when digging in your winter vegetables.


The myth of drug therapy
Today, in some so called developed parts of the Western world, more people visit alternative health care practitioners than visit orthodox medical practitioners. Judged in terms of numbers orthodox medicine is now the true alternative.

But the steady rise in popularity of alternative medicine has, regrettably, made remarkably little impact on the way that orthodox medicine is practised. There are, it is true, a few orthodox practitioners who offer alternative forms of treatment (though, sadly, many of these are best described as dabblers rather than practitioners - there are doctors around practising acupuncture, osteopathy, homoeopathy and hypnotherapy on the basis of one or two weekend courses) but the establishment view, proposed and seconded by the pharmaceutical industry and supported by a medical profession which is now more of a marketing arm to the drugs barons than an independent profession, remains unchanged: alternative medicine is a dangerous waste of time and money which should be patronised when it cannot be ignored and suppressed whenever possible.

The myth that drug therapy offers the only true solution is now repeated unquestioningly and without hesitation or embarrassment. Many members of the medical establishment believe that `medical advance largely depends' upon `the pharmaceutical industry'. This is not regarded as a subject for debate but as a fundamental building block; a fact of medical life in the 90's. The importance of drug therapy, and the reverence with which drugs are regarded by doctors and nurses, is perhaps best seen in modern rural health centres where doctors dispense as well as prescribe and where the dispensing counter where patients exchange their prescription slips for drugs is rather akin to a high altar. The modern consultation is, too often, a simple, uncomplicated, thoughtless three part process. First, the patient visits the doctor and reports his or her symptoms. Second, the doctor decides which drug (or, more likely, which drugs) will be most appropriate and writes out what he considers to be an appropriate prescription. And, third, the patient takes the prescription to the high priest and has it turned into a bottle of pills, a tube of ointment, an inhaler or whichever form has been deemed appropriate. An orthodox, modern medical school training means (literally) that a doctor is trained and kept up to date by and for the pharmaceutical industry. This may sound like hyperbole. It isn't. Drug companies pay for a very large part of the education that a doctor receives.

It seems that everyone in modern health care worships at the sterile shrine of the pharmacy.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the drug company owned and controlled medical establishment still looks with horror at alternative medicine. Attempts to organise research programmes are invariably treated with a sneer or a patronising dismissal. It is one of the great scandals of the twentieth century that the billion dollar worldwide `charity' cancer industry, the international drug industry and the medical `profession' (now, more of a trade than a `profession') would all much rather suppress an alternative cancer treatment rather than have to admit that orthodox remedies might be bettered. The media supports this unholy trinity. In my book `Power over Cancer' (published by the European Medical Journal) I explained how 80% of cancer deaths could be avoided simply by avoiding factors (such as foods) which are known to cause cancer and eating foods which are known to provide protection from cancer.

The truth is that the medical establishment - and the drug industry - are terrified of alternative medicine for they regard it as a major commercial threat.

So, the bottom line is that you are unlikely to find a `holistic' orthodox practitioner after all.

You might expect to do better among alternative practitioners.

But I fear that you would probably be disappointed there too.

Tragically, too many alternative care practitioners are, in their complementary way, just as arrogant and intellectually isolated as medical men and women who have been trained to hand out pills.

Many acupuncturists, homoeopaths, herbalists and others describe themselves as offering their patients `holistic' medicine when in reality they offer nothing of the sort.

However well trained she may be the alternative therapist who confines herself to a single speciality is not a `holistic' practitioner. How many acupuncturists, herbalists and naturopaths will admit that orthodox doctors and hospitals can sometimes provide the best service?

To be honest I don't think that many patients are ever going to receive truly `holistic' treatment from their practitioners - whether they are orthodox or alternative. Most training programmes are, by their very nature, designed to produce specialists. Medical schools turn out drug dispensers and acupuncture schools turn out acupuncturists. And there aren't many health care professionals with the time or inclination to study other available specialities.

We must also recognise that there is, of course, a huge financial disincentive involved here. How many practitioners are going to suggest to a paying patient that he would obtain better treatment by visiting another professional? I know of very few truly `holistic' centres where a patient can obtain treatment from a comprehensive variety of orthodox and alternative practitioners.

All this is sad.

But it doesn't mean that `holistic' medicine is out of reach.


You Should Become A Holistic Patient
What it does mean is that if you really want `holistic' treatment (and in my opinion you should) you're going to have to take control yourself if you or anyone in your family needs treatment.

There are very few truly `holistic' medical practitioners. But everyone can - and should - be a `holistic' patient. Anyone who is ill needs attention to their mind and spirit as well as their body. Selecting a properly balanced diet may be as important as choosing the right drug. Sometimes a successful outcome to an illness may be 80% dependent on choosing the right drug. On another occasion a successful outcome may be 80% dependent on diet.

Holistic practitioners are rare - but you can and should be a `holistic' patient.


back