|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2004 : 09:34:50 [Permalink]
|
Hope Renae isn't really gone from the thread, I haven't had my 2 cents yet.
Lot of reasonable things being said here and a lot of misinterpreting. I'll try to stay out of that.
Couple things, though:
Chronic illnesses that can't be cured can be improved with treatment. I think that is being said here somewhere.
There is a lot of over prescribing of antibiotics by doctors for upper respiratory viral infections that would have gotten better on their own, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to conclude that applies to everything doctors see and treat.
While a fair amount of Dr visits may be for things that don't need treatment, one reason for going in the first place is to find that out. That is not necessarily an unnecessary visit.
And, alternative or not (heaven forbid I get in another semantics argument with Dave about what to call the 'not'), there is a formula for determining when to use interventions.
What is the cost/risk of using the treatment.
What is the benefit of using the treatment. (Another way of stating that is, "What is the risk of not using it", and maybe add what is the cost of treating it later when it is more advanced if you don't treat it now.
Is there a better treatment you are foregoing when you choose a treatment.
If there is no adequate treatment in "not alternative medicine", then alternative medicine is an option. But I personally wouldn't go get treatment from a naturopath after "not alternative medicine" failed. Instead, I would consider both kinds of medicine equally. Is there evidence it works, and evidence it isn't harmful would be the assessment criteria.
To think some naturopath or other alternative healer will have some magic cure because a regular doctor did not, is just that, magical thinking.
On occasion, one must use a treatment that has not been sufficiently researched. Perhaps there are early indications it works or merely theoretical indications. To use treatments under these circumstances, one must weigh the potential benefit in the same way as with a known treatment. I'd make the decision using the same criteria. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2004 : 09:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Well, if you really want to get down to it, from this page,There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence." [Philip B. Fontanarosa M.D., George D. Lundberg, M.D., . Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA 280:1618-1619, 1998 ] I think we agree on this, do we not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
