Do the benefits of allopathic medicine outweigh its risks?

¶ … allopathic medicine outweigh the risks?

The risks and benefits of allopathic medicine

Introduction definition of allopathic medicine is: "The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment." (Definition of Allopathic medicine) Allopathic medicine is also known as formal or conventional medicine and refers to accepted Western health and medical practices. The term "allopathic" originated in 1842 and is ascribed to C.F.S. Hahnemann who used the terms to differentiate conventional medicine from homeopathy, which is a system of medicine based on producing the same symptoms as the disease or disorder. (Definition of Allopathic medicine)

The term allopathic is used in one sense therefore simply to differentiate conventional medicine and medical praxis from other philosophies and systems. On the other hand the term is also used in a derogatory sense. (allopathic medicine) This refers to the fact that conventional medicine has been shown to have many areas that can be criticized.

There are numerous medical experts and commentators, especially in recent years, who point out the flaws and failings in this system of medicine. While allopathic medicine and practices are accepted by many at face value as being " scientific" and the only acceptable way of fighting disease and maintaining health, yet there are many detractors who refer to various aspects of this medical system that are questionable and even aspects that put the patient and the society at risk.

The negative aspects of allopathic medicine

While not generally accepted, some health experts see allopathic medical practices as potentially life - threatening. As one commentator points out,

Paradoxically, the downfall of Western medicine may prove to be its inattention to basic human physiology. For all its scientific rigor, allopathic medicine cannot hide the glaring inconsistencies that characterize it. Toxic medications, inattention to basic nutritional facts, out-of-hand rejection of new research and time proven traditional medical techniques and especially the prevalence of side effects from its own treatments have made modern western medicine one of the major causes of unnecessary death and suffering.

Hasslberger S.)

It should be noted that this view is contrary to popular perceptions and sees allopathic medicine as source of "death and suffering" and not healing.

This view is one that has become increasingly common to differing degrees in many societies and cultures and has spawned a resurgence of traditional healing and alternative medical practices.

On the other hand it is assumed by many and generally believed, at least in most of the Western developed world, that increases and developments in medical drugs and medical technologies have resulted in a general reduction of disease and healthier and safer environment. This is true to a great extent. However many studies attest to the fact that this is not always the case. For instance, there is proof that the increase in medical technologies and sophisticated drugs has in fact led to a surge in what are referred to as Iatrogenic diseases.

Iatrogenic disease is described as health problems that are "...induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy, especially as a complication of treatment." (iatrogenic disease)

Furthermore,."..Iatrogenic disease is responsible for 250,000 deaths per year making it the third leading cause of death in the United States. " (iatrogenic disease)

In other words, there is a verifiable and extensive category or disease which is ascribed solely to diseases or negative results which are caused by the physician or the health system itself. Examples that are given of this phenomenon are, "....Thalidomide and the resulting birth defects in the 1950s are just one terrible example of which there are many more..." (Hunt, 1988) Another example that is often cited is the 1976 swine flu inoculations which succeeded in killing more people than the flu itself. (Hunt, 1988) Even more alarming is that this also refers to the extremely high rate of death as a direct result of the hospital environment and hospital accident rates. As will be discussed, hospitals can also produce what are known as "super infections." They are also known as breeding grounds for disease. As Hunt (1998) states: "The side effects of many medications seem as bad if not worse than the disease for which the drug is a cure. " (Hunt, 1988)

The reality of Iatrogenic disease therefore paints a very different picture to the popular notions and belief that modern allopathic medicine as an infallible system of health maintenance and the fight against disease. The following sections will outline some of these critiques of allopathic methods and medicine in an attempt to answer the central question of this paper: do the benefits of allopathic medicine outweigh the risks?

Western medical views, philosophy and value systems

One of the central aspects that influence all considerations and critiques of Western allopathic medicine, and the main reason for the search for alternatives to the western medical models, is the underlying and determining philosophy of medicine and Western views that support the allopathic viewpoint. Allopathic medicine is firmly based in what could be termed a dualistic and oppositional view of the human body and human being. These terms, which refer basically to the differentiation between mind and body, can be traced back to Aristotle and Descartes in Western European thought.

This trajectory in Western thinking has led to the dominance of objective scientific reasoning in the world; which has had the effect of dividing the subject from the object. In medical terms the dualistic frame of reference has in turn led to the view of disease and health as two states in direct opposition.

Disease is therefore dealt with in terms of methods and procedures that conform to this fundamental dualism. In allopathic medicine disease is seen as being limited to the area of the ailment and not related to all the other parts of the body or to the mental consciousness.

Eastern thought on the other had is based on a more holistic view of realty and has led to a very different system of medicine; which has been seen to be increasingly important and has been adopted in Western countries over the past few decades. The Eastern medical praxis emphasizes the interdependence and the coordination between mind and body. There is also an ongoing and complex debate about the holistic as opposed to the allotropic reductionist view of the human health and functioning

One of the central critiques of modern allopathic medicine is that it is not holistic. In other words it focuses only on selected areas and aspects of the total organism and does not see their relationship to other aspects and areas. This fact, according to many alternative medical practitioners, is a fault line in Western medical theory and practice that has very real and potentially destructive consequence for health care and disease control.

The emphasis on holistic health care is something that is being accepted with the framework of allopathic medicine to greater extent than in the past. Holistic health care incorporates and takes into account all the aspect of the individual, including the physical, emotional and spiritual interaction. However in allopathic medicine, the focus tends to be reductionist in that there is a "...emphasis on the pathology or disease of a specific body part." (HOLISTIC HEALTH CARE)

Therefore many of the most important critiques of allopathic medicine originate in this separation and division of the body components and the body and mind; or more correctly, in the refusal to see the interconnectedness and interdependence of the various aspect in human health. From this central critique stem numerous other aspects that are related to the allopathic reductionism as opposed to a more integrative and holistic approach. As commentators state, while there are many aspects of allopathic medicine that are to be lauded and which have led to dramatic success in the heath care, such as penicillin and antibiotics, yet the dualistic reductionism of the body and health care in general has resulted in a plethora of very real risks in the use of modern medicines and methods. This view is concisely summed up in the following quotation.

Some of the greatest successes of allopathic medicine are heroic in nature, that is in the emergency room, with antibiotics or surgically after a serious disease process has been established. When we are in need of these treatments, we applaud modern medicine. However, our society tends to be overly reliant on these heroic and often very expensive methods. We have overused treatments such as antibiotics to the point that we have endangered their efficacy.

In addition, allopathic treatments often have negative side effects, as in the area of prescription drugs.

HOLISTIC HEALTH CARE)

Hasslberger S.)

Chemotherapy and cancer treatment provides an insight into the extreme risk factors in the use of allopathic medicines. It also illustrates the way that allopathic medicine functions; the benefit is weighed against the risk and if the benefits are deemed to be more then the drug or medication is prescribed by the practitioner. However, even this process is not always subscribed to and there are many cases where "...the risks outweigh the benefits and over time the use of such drugs show that the free radicals generated by them eventually caused oxidative stress and oxidative injury to the cells and produced complications." (Hasslberger S.) This was clearly seen in the withdrawal, after a long period of use, of drugs like seen in the celebrex, vioxx, and others. Over time these drugs were shown conclusively to have severely negative effect but were nevertheless prescribed and ascertained to be acceptable forms of medication. This leads to the following critique of many accepted forms of allopathic medication. "So, how do we know for sure that a cancer patient died from the disease and not from oxidative stress in the brain or liver caused by the excess free radicals generated by chemo-drugs? Where are these studies?" (Hasslberger S.) similar criticism of the risk facets of allopathic medications have been levels at the treatment of HIV / AIDS and the use of AZT. AZT is a highly toxic and classified poison. This drug was initially only prescribed for severe AIDS patients who had "...a history of cytologically confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) or an absolute CD4 (T4 helper/inducer) lymphocyte count of less than 200/mm3 in the peripheral blood before therapy is begun..." (Hasslberger S.) However the use of AZT was extended to include those who had only mild symptoms of damage to the immune systems and even to those HIV patients who had in fact not developed any symptoms at all.

This has led to worldwide debate and even resistance to the acceptance of AZT in many developing countries that are hardest hit by HIV / AIDS, such as Southern Africa.

There are numerous examples of the extreme risk factor in many accepted and prescribed allopathic medicines and drugs. Another example is HRT. Hormone Replacement Therapy or HRT was seen to be a wonder treatment by Allopathic practitioners. However, what is less well-known is that various trials have shown that the "...incidence of cancers in the HRT group is significantly higher than in those who do no resort to HRT." (Hasslberger S.)

2.2.1. Disease and antibiotics

There are many other aspects that have been shown to impact on the question of risk and the effectiveness of allopathic medicine. In fact some studies state that modern medicine is in crisis and has not understood the progress and process of disease. While medicine has become more sophisticated it has underestimated the spread and nature of disease. As one study puts it, modern medicine has failed ".... To deal with more complex systems." (Levins, 2000, p. 8) This refers to "... The growing gap between rich and poor (which) make many technical advances irrelevant to most of the world's people. Public health authorities were caught by surprise by the emergence of new diseases and the reappearance of diseases believed to be eradicated." (Levins, 2000, p. 8)

While the allopathic health community thought that they had dealt a severe blow to most diseases, they were in fact surprised by new diseases and strains in many parts of the world. " in the 1970s, it was common to hear that infectious disease as an area of research was dying. In principle, infection had been licked; the health problems of the future would be degenerative diseases, problems of aging and chronic diseases. We now know this was a monumental error." (Levins, 2000, p. 8) There are many references in the literature to the failure of modern allopathic medicine to deal with emergent and new strains of disease. "We need to recognize that the historical mindset in medicine and related sciences was dangerously -- and ideologically -- limited. Nearly all who engaged in public health prediction took too narrow a view, both geographically and temporally. "(Levins, 2000, p. 8) Levins and others state that modern medicine has not been fully aware of the ways that diseases and viruses mutate. The well-known fact of more and more resistance to antibiotics is a case in point.

Central to this lack of awareness in allopathic medicine is the inability to understand the relationships and the interrelationships between different factors, such as population growth and change as well as changing social facets that have influenced the spread and transmission of disease. Once again this refers to the underlying flaw in modern medicine; namely the lack of understanding of the holistic and interconnected nature of human health.

2.3. Appearances, economics and discriminatory practices

One of the central criticisms of modern allopathic medicine is that it subscribes to the modern cult of appearance and fashion and expends too much research and energy on the more frivolous side of healthcare. There is more concern and money spent on artificial and "plastic" surgery for the sake of appearance in many countries than on real illness and disease. This also relates to the way that allopathic medicine interconnects with economic and discriminatory factors.

As mentioned in the previous section, the monopoly of drug and pharmaceutical companies has had a profound and often negative effect to the status and efficacy of allopathic medicine. There are many reports and studies which provide evidence of the way that modern medicine and medical practitioners are influenced by the larger drug companies.

In fact, the postgraduate continuing education of American physicians is chiefly controlled by drug companies, and medical journals are plagued with drug advertisements

The physician may receive literature about the drug in the mail, which may include numerous samples, books, trinkets, maps, and pictures. All of these items are intended to make him/her unconsciously favor the company and its products.

Karel M.)

This view can be found in many reports and comments on the system that supports modern allopathic medicine and on, "how the medical monopoly that created the system in the first place is allowed to control health care."(Death by Modern Medicine)

Another factor that reflects negatively on allopathic medicine is the high cost of healthcare, which in effect makes it exclusionary. This in effect means that many people are excluded from adequate healthcare and the medical system becomes biased towards those who are wealthy. This also refers to the "rationalization" of the medical system.

Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) have taken over health care and hospitals and have supposedly provided incentives for a reduction of costs. Cuts in Federal funding for all health-related spending and the initiation of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) in Medicare have been further attempted to "rationalize" and control an explosive cost situation. All of these strategies have failed. (Hunt, 1988)

Another example is the assertions that the large pharmaceutical companies have increased the prices of essential medication and drugs to suit their profit margins. "The thrust of the pharmaceutical industry will clearly not be in the direction of reduced costs. The history of this industry has been full of incredible examples of price gouging." (Hunt, 1988) This was seen in the pricing of the essential drug against AIDS, AZT, which "... is now the highest-priced medication in North America. "(Hunt, 1988) the reason given for these high prices by the companies is the high cost of research and development. Medical insurance pressure and the need for companies to reduce claims has also meant that many people are discharged from hospitals before they are medically fit to leave - which subsequently increases the risk to their health.

It is also certainly true that not all people have the same degree of access to the benefits to modern allopathic medicine. This refers to the issue of healthcare distribution. The United States is one of the few countries, besides South Africa, which does not have national health insurance or a national health service. (Hunt, 1988) This leads to a situation where many people who are most in need of medical care are excluded by the system due to the structure and stratification of society. Another aspect to consider is that the situation with regard to the usefulness and distribution of medical healthcare is much worse in developing counties. Even when the medical equipment is available in some countries like Africa, the technological expertise is not. "Whilst sophisticated gadgets are freely available, their usage is questionable." (Bawaskar H. S) Many doctors are also not prepared to work in remote or rural areas. This has resulted in many of these areas resorting to non-allopathic medicine.

2.4. Hospital practices

The dangers of early discharge from hospitals have been mentioned above. However this is not the only risk that modern hospitals pose. There are many references in the literature to the spread of disease in hospitals.

As Levin (2000) states "We create hospitals and they become the centers for the propagation of new diseases." (Levins, 2000, p. 8) it is ironic that while modern medicine has become technologically sophisticated in its treatment of disease, at the same time these very institutions should become areas where disease originates and spreads.

There are many reports of the dangers inherent in modern hospitals. For example, in an article entitled, Air pollution and hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease in persons with congestive heart failure or arrhythmia, by Mann et al. (2002), the following extract refers to the air pollution factors in hospitals. "Over the past 15 years, epidemiologic studies consistently have demonstrated an association between ambient levels of ambient air pollutants and daily cardiovascular mortality, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits. (Mann et al., 2002)

There are also regular reports in the press and in journals about lack of care leading to fatal mistakes in the hospital environment. For example, " a pregnant woman died in South Florida Baptist Hospital two weeks ago because a nurse gave her an overdose of a common medicine, hospital officials said..." (GREENE L. 2006) Another example is the transmission of diseases through food in hospitals. "The results of an investigation into an outbreak of food-borne disease at a hospital in Los Angeles County are reported... The food source and etiologic agent(s) responsible for the outbreak were not identified by our investigation." (Food-borne disease in hospitals: prevention in a changing food service environment.)

3. Conclusion

There is no doubt that modern allopathic medicine has brought about incredible advances in disease control and healthcare. However it is equally true that there are many risks and dangers to this from of medicine that are not as widely known or publicized. Views about the validity and effectiveness of allopathic medicines and practices are changing in the Western world. No longer is it the case that modern medicine is just accepted at face value. Many patients, researchers and practitioners are questioning various aspects of allopathic medicine. There is the growing awareness that many of the breakthroughs and achievement of modern medical technology is suspect. For example,"...study of modern population increases has established that the conquest of infectious diseases was not due to modern technical medicine as is commonly believed. Rather, decline in mortality from infectious diseases began before the introduction of these measures." (Hunt, 1988) Many now claim that the reason for the decline in infectious disease was rather due to "...improved nutrition and housing, clean water, and healthier environments." (Hunt, 1988) Coupled with this is the fact that modern medicine still discriminates in terms of economic class and other variables. There are also claims that a false confidence in medical technology has been an indirect cause of the neglect of sexually transmitted disease in the last 35 years. (Hunt, 1988)

As a result there is an increasing emphasis on alternatives to allopathic medicine and methods. Many health practitioners see more value in diet and exercise and have lost faith in the prescribed medications that can result in unforeseen and possible harmful side-effects. Central to all these criticism of allopathic medicine is the fact that this form of medicine is reductionist. The fact that allopathic medicine does not take account the myriads of related factors and aspects in disease is the central factor that has led to the accusations of risk and to the loss of faith in its effectiveness. In answering the question whether there are more risks than benefits in allopathic medicine, one must take all these factors into account. While there are many benefits these benefits are severely limited and possibly even outweighed by the negative aspects and risk factors.