Prejudice and fear
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:48 am
Dave,
Before replying to your question, I want to say that it's hard to focus
on clinical issues with all the accusations and counter-accusations
flying back and forth on the list. I don't even understand some aspects
of the discussion. For instance, what is an "ST"? Please answer that
off-list because I don't want to add new life to a dead topic. I do look
forward to getting back to why most of us presumably participate in this
list--to share information on homeopathy in a mutually respectful and
beneficial way.
Regarding prejudice and fear (outside this list!), I think conventional
medical practitioners feel threatened that people with less or just
different training may disagree with their treatment approach and lure
patients away. This is not just a financial concern, but often a genuine
concern for the patient's welfare. In other words, if an oncologist
truly believes that the only hope for a cancer patient is chemotherapy
and radiation and the patient opts for homeopathy instead, the
oncologist may feel that the patient is being duped and unknowingly
putting his or her life at risk. On the far end of this spectrum are our
beloved quackbusters, some of whom I believe think they are performing a
great service to humanity. In addition, most medical professionals are
very left-brained and when faced with such homeopathic concepts as "the
more dilute the solution, the stronger the potency," they can go no further.
This does not just apply to conventional health professionals. How many
of us were skeptical of homeopathy before we had a chance to experience
its power firsthand? I personally remember in my initial homeopathic
studies, coming across a graphic description of the source of the remedy
Medorrhinum. I was so horrified at the prospect of someone ingesting
such a substance, that I told a friend, "I will NEVER practice homeopathy!"
As for the patient in question, I referred him to a naturopathic
practitioner who planned to prescribe a homeopathic constitutional
remedy. On learning this, the patient's therapist (without talking to
me) told numerous other staff members that homeopathic remedies contain
alcohol and the patient (who was a recovering addict) was being put at
risk for a relapse. Before I even knew what had transpired, the whole
staff was in an uproar and my attempts to explain the misunderstanding
fell on deaf ears. I remember sitting in that staff meeting and feeling
the energy of a lynch mob. I could say nothing to change the tone.
Which is why I now want to gently and quietly introduce homeopathy to
the inpatient setting where I practice. The psychiatrists and primary
care practitioners have graciously given me the opportunity to do this.
In return, I agree to respect their concerns and limit the scope of this
project. My greatest hope is to be able to prescribe successfully for
enough patients to bring the right attention to bear.
Sincerely,
Arlene
And perhaps elaborate on case-in-point in the instance mentioned?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Before replying to your question, I want to say that it's hard to focus
on clinical issues with all the accusations and counter-accusations
flying back and forth on the list. I don't even understand some aspects
of the discussion. For instance, what is an "ST"? Please answer that
off-list because I don't want to add new life to a dead topic. I do look
forward to getting back to why most of us presumably participate in this
list--to share information on homeopathy in a mutually respectful and
beneficial way.
Regarding prejudice and fear (outside this list!), I think conventional
medical practitioners feel threatened that people with less or just
different training may disagree with their treatment approach and lure
patients away. This is not just a financial concern, but often a genuine
concern for the patient's welfare. In other words, if an oncologist
truly believes that the only hope for a cancer patient is chemotherapy
and radiation and the patient opts for homeopathy instead, the
oncologist may feel that the patient is being duped and unknowingly
putting his or her life at risk. On the far end of this spectrum are our
beloved quackbusters, some of whom I believe think they are performing a
great service to humanity. In addition, most medical professionals are
very left-brained and when faced with such homeopathic concepts as "the
more dilute the solution, the stronger the potency," they can go no further.
This does not just apply to conventional health professionals. How many
of us were skeptical of homeopathy before we had a chance to experience
its power firsthand? I personally remember in my initial homeopathic
studies, coming across a graphic description of the source of the remedy
Medorrhinum. I was so horrified at the prospect of someone ingesting
such a substance, that I told a friend, "I will NEVER practice homeopathy!"
As for the patient in question, I referred him to a naturopathic
practitioner who planned to prescribe a homeopathic constitutional
remedy. On learning this, the patient's therapist (without talking to
me) told numerous other staff members that homeopathic remedies contain
alcohol and the patient (who was a recovering addict) was being put at
risk for a relapse. Before I even knew what had transpired, the whole
staff was in an uproar and my attempts to explain the misunderstanding
fell on deaf ears. I remember sitting in that staff meeting and feeling
the energy of a lynch mob. I could say nothing to change the tone.
Which is why I now want to gently and quietly introduce homeopathy to
the inpatient setting where I practice. The psychiatrists and primary
care practitioners have graciously given me the opportunity to do this.
In return, I agree to respect their concerns and limit the scope of this
project. My greatest hope is to be able to prescribe successfully for
enough patients to bring the right attention to bear.
Sincerely,
Arlene
And perhaps elaborate on case-in-point in the instance mentioned?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
