Psychological Factors in Health Traditional

Psychological Factors in Health

Traditional approaches to human medicine have always dealt with diseases and conditions affecting the physical body very differently from those that affect the mind. In some respects, that is perfectly understandable because physical ailments typically present with clearly identifiable causes and consequences whereas psychological ailments are limited to the state and condition of the mind. However, one of the many advances in the modern scientific understanding of human medicine has been the conceptual recognition that while the mind and body are distinct entities in some respects, they are intimately interconnected in others. In fact, contemporary empirical research conclusively documents that myriad conditions defined by physical symptoms are significantly influenced -- even, in the most extreme cases, caused -- by psychological factors (Gatchel, Polatin, & Kinney, 1995).

Examples of the potential influence of psychological factors on physiological processes include anecdotal references dating back to antiquity, such as in connection with Voodoo practitioners who are widely reported to have actually cause major illness and even death purely by suggestion in conjunction with culturally-learned beliefs that such practice are genuinely possible (van Tulder, Ostelo, Vlaeyen, et al., 2001). Modern empirical evidence of the connection between the state of the human mind and the state and relative health of physiological processes include studies of conditions such as skeletal problems, dermatological ailments, gastrointestinal conditions, and perception of physical pain in numerous respects (Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, et al., 2007). In the most extreme cases, triggers strictly limited to the psychological realm have been responsible for so-called hysterical blindness, laryngitis, and even sudden death from physical causes such as coronary infarction and systemic shock from fright or emotional grief (van Tulder, Ostelo, Vlaeyen, et al., 2001).

Still, even in the modern age of medicine in which the connection between the state of mind and physiological processes has been conclusively documented in myriad different contexts, many people, particularly patients, remain skeptical and take offense to the suggestion of physicians that their physical symptoms are the product of psychological factors (Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, et al., 2007). Typically, patients assume that the diagnosis implicating psychological causes for physical ailments confuse that concept to mean that their physical symptoms are not real or that they are "in their heads" (Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, et al., 2007). However that is not at all what is implied by the identification of psychological factors in physiological ailments. The diagnosis of psychologically-caused physical disease means only that the origin of physical symptoms that are very real once they present as patient complaints it traceable to psychological factors; it does not refute the fact that the physical symptoms are, themselves, real.

One of the most common contemporary examples of the mind-body connection in relation to the influence of psychological factors on physiological health pertains to the ubiquitous problem of lower back pain among adults (Jensen & Brant-Zawadzki, 1994). Lower back pain affects more than seventy percent of adults at some point in their lives and every year, many thousands of Americans submit to invasive surgery to correct spinal disc abnormalities that their physicians have identified as the organic source of their chronic discomfort (Jensen & Brant-Zawadzki, 1994). Unfortunately, in many of those cases, even invasive surgery that corrects the structural abnormalities initially identified as the source of physical symptoms fails to resolve the symptoms that originally prompted those patients to seek medical treatment in the first place (Turk & Okifuji, 2002).

According to contemporary research findings, many of the structural abnormalities typically identified as the source of chronic back pain actually exist in many patients who do not suffer from any symptoms of physical discomfort at all (Jensen & Brant-Zawadzki, 1994). In fact, those conditions frequently associated with chronic back pain, such as compressed and degenerative spinal discs cause absolutely no pain in many individuals whose x-rays would seem to suggest that they would. At the other end of the spectrum, the x-rays of many patients who complain of chronic back pain that is so severe as to be completely incapacitating demonstrate absolutely no identifiable structural abnormalities (Turk & Okifuji, 2002).

Those data have led to an entirely different focus to resolve many instances of chronic back pain. In general, those strategies emphasize increasing the patient's conscious awareness of possible emotional (i.e. psychological) sources of distress rather than skeletal causes of the real pain that they perceive. In principle, the manifestation of psychological issues in physical pain, such as chronic back pain, is the result of displaced emotional stress that causes significantly reduced blood flow to specific regions of the body (Jensen & Brant-Zawadzki, 1994). That reduction in blood flow interferes with the optimal transport of nutrients (including vital oxygen) to the tissues involved, as well as with the transport of waste products (such as lactic acid) from those tissues. Those mechanisms trigger the muscle spasms and inflammation that produce physical pain (Turk & Okifuji, 2002). Ultimately, many of those patients achieve satisfactory results through psychological counseling that enables them to experience their emotional symptoms directly instead of indirectly.

The Purpose and Ethical Justification of Scientific Experimentation on Animals

Modern medicine is, at its core, a scientific discipline in that it emphasizes experimentation according to the scientific method. As such, it relies substantially on the ability of medical researchers to conduct experiments comparing proposed theories and specific treatment methodologies against others to identify those that actually work. Ever since antiquity, the Hippocratic Oath taken by all physicians since Hippocrates prohibits them from harming their patients. Nevertheless, until the latter part of the 20th century, notoriously unethical research studies were still being conducted, even in the United States, such as in connection with the infamous Tuskegee Study in which African-American patients with syphilis were purposely left untreated and uninformed about their conditions to permit physicians to study the progression and eventual outcome of their diseases. Since that time, the field of medical ethics has developed tremendously, and today, medical research is strictly regulated by both law and by the American Medical Association Board of Ethics.

One useful avenue for medical researchers and for scientific researchers of all kinds more generally is the use of animal test subjects. That is because the applicable rules that restrict human subject research do not restrict animal research. Nevertheless, there are ethical issues in connection with the use of animal subjects. Pigs are widely used to test drugs being developed for human consumption because of the high degree of similarity between pig and human skin cells. Laboratory rats and mice have also been used extensively as test subjects throughout the modern scientific community. However, the more we learn about animals, the more that questions have been raised on the matter.

On one hand, it may be easy to justify certain kinds of research that are necessary to develop life-saving medications for human beings. intended On the other hand, it may be much harder to justify using animal test subjects to conduct research that has nothing to do with important medical advances for human beings but only with for-profit enterprises such as the development of new cosmetic lines (Tangley, 2000). Certainly, if it is ethically permissible to raise and slaughter animals for human consumption as food, it is difficult to argue that there should be restrictions on other uses of animals, such as for scientific research.

However, even the production and slaughter of animals for food is regulated by laws pertaining to the prevention of cruelty to animals, simply because it is considered cruel to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering in the food production and slaughtering processes. Various religious traditions also recognize this as a moral obligation, Judaism and Islam, in particular. Both of those religious faiths expressly prohibit methods of slaughtering animals for food that do not ensure a quick and relatively painless death (Tripp, 2003). Contemporary research into animal sentience and consciousness strongly suggest that many animals are capable of experiencing emotions as well as psychological trauma (Coren, 1995). Even without formal empirical research, it is evident in many instances that domesticated animals such as dogs and cats, and many other species that have not been domesticated, are also fully capable of suffering psychologically from deprivation and trauma besides physical trauma (Coren, 1995).