Massage therapy? Pranic healing? Polarity therapy? Zero balancing?
Back in my days of practicing law, one of my escapes from reality was a good massage. It was a great treat, exchanging the high-octane atmosphere of the law office for the soothing music, subdued voices and pastel tones of the treatment room. I could have stayed on that table for hours.
Little did I know just how much an escape from reality massage therapy would soon become.
About 15 years ago, when I called to book an appointment with my favorite therapist, a recorded message offered something called “ray-kee” – at least, that is how it was pronounced. I assumed it was just a form of massage and didn’t think anything about it. Then, at one session, while my feet were being rubbed, my massage therapist – an RN, no less – suggested I would be surprised at how often a sore spot actually correlated with a medical problem. She was talking about reflexology, of course.
Fast forward a few years. A new massage therapist and a new location, this time a “health center” (actually, a gym) owned by a local hospital. The massage therapist inquired whether I’d like to try “cranial sacral therapy“. “What’s that?” I asked. “Oh,” she said, “it would be hard to explain.” (She got that right.) She then proceeded to inform me that she had actually used it in one of our sessions. This alerted me to the possibility that informed consent was not part of the massage therapy protocol.
A few more years went by. Another therapist (also an RN), another location. I was pleased with her because I thought she did a good job and she also taught me some simple stretching exercises. To my surprise, in one session, she started pressing on the space between my toes because, she said, it corresponded with the (something, something – I didn’t get this part) of my neck. Reflexology again. (Are they now teaching reflexology in nursing school? I am beginning to wonder.) (more…)
One of the major themes of science-based medicine (unsurprisingly) is that medicine should be based on science. We consider ourselves specialists in a larger movement defending science in general from mysticism, superstition, and spiritualism. We are not against anyone’s personal belief, and are officially agnostic toward any faith (as is science itself), but will vigorously defend science from any intrusion into its proper realm.
The so-called alternative medicine movement (CAM) is largely an attempt to insert religious beliefs into the practice and profession of medicine. CAM is also an attempt to create a double standard or even eliminate the standard of care so that any nonsense can flourish and con-artists and charlatans can practice their craft freely without being hounded by pesky regulations designed to protect the public. These are both insidious aspects of CAM that need to be exposed and vigorously opposed.
A recent article by Dr. Michel Accad demonstrates how brazenly some are trying to insert faith healing and spiritualism back into medicine. He does so by couching his arguments in philosophy and marketing terms, but in the end he is essentially saying that doctors should practice his faith. He doesn’t really make any arguments for this position, but rather simply gives a history of progress in Western thought as if that is sufficient. (more…)
Note: This was written as a book review for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and will be published in its Jan/Feb 2014 issue.
Medicine is chock-full of philosophy and doesn’t know it. Mario Bunge, a philosopher, physicist, and CSI (Center for Skeptical Inquiry) fellow, wants to bring philosophy and medicine together for mutual benefit. He has written a book full of insight and wisdom, Medical Philosophy: Conceptual Issues in Medicine.
Whether doctors recognize it or not, medicine is firmly based on the philosophical principles of materialism, systemism, realism, scientism, and humanism. Bunge explains that:
Without materialism, both diseases and therapies would be taken to be purely spiritual.
Without systemism, every disease would be attributed to an independent module.
Without realism, diseases would be viewed as either imaginary or as social flaws.
Without scientism, either nihilism or dogmatism would prevail, and all the achievements of biomedical research of the last 500 years would be consigned to oblivion.
Without humanism, all medical practice would be mercenary, and there would be no public health care. (more…)
Part I of this blog† summarized the origin of homeopathy, invented in 1790 by Samuel Christian Hahnemann. It discussed Hahnemann’s first two “homœopathic laws of nature,” similia similibus curantur (like cures like) and the “law of infinitesimals,” and showed that his rationales for each have long been refuted. Hahnemann proclaimed a third doctrine, the “law of psora” [“itch”], said by him to be “the mother of all true chronic diseases except the syphilitic and sycotic.” Oddly, it seems to have been forgotten.
Part II gives Hahnemann the opportunity to explain his assertions more thoroughly, as is his due. It considers those assertions from the vantage point of modernity, as is ours.
“Leave None of them Uncured”
According to Hahnemann, homeopathy is a panacea:
“Now, however, in all careful trials, pure experience, the sole and infallible oracle of the healing art, teaches us that actually that medicine which, in its action on the healthy human body, has demonstrated its power of producing the greatest number of symptoms similar to those observable in the case of disease under treatment, does also, in doses of suitable potency and attenuation, rapidly, radically and permanently remove the totality of the symptoms of this morbid state, that is to say, the whole disease present, and change it into health; and that all medicines cure, without exception, those diseases whose symptoms most nearly resemble their own, and leave none of them uncured.”
How might this happen?