11 September 2009

A POST ON HEALTH CARE, OBAMA, HOLISTIC MEDICINE, SHOOTING ONESELF IN THE FOOT AND MY KITCHEN

I honor holistic medicine. When I am faced with non-sequitur rebuttals to that statement (e.g. “I believe in real, tested, Western scientific medicine and not your weird remedies; Melissa, your teas and herbs are hocus pocus), I find my self going back to basic definitions and clear argument. For those who assume the word holistic comes from a primer for witches (apologies to my Wiccan friends) and who get all bent out of shape on conjured assumptions of holistic medicine, my argument goes something like this: a) the word holistic comes from the Greek holos and means “whole”, not “strange concoction” (by the way, I think of Greece as rather West of the Orient); b) the aim of holistic medicine, specifically long-term health and constant prevention, is healthier, brings more joy and probably costs less than short-term treatment of any (or many) acute symptom(s); and c) to the extent possible, holistic-medicine practitioners find the source of any symptomatic problem and correct it, remembering the symptom may be physically far form the source.
That’s it.

I am not innately against Western medicine. Western medicine theoretically works on the same premises of time-tested non-Western medicine: test chemical compound (whether pill or plant or pill derived from plant), see if it works, use/prescribe. Also, a Western pill quite possibly may share the same chemical compound an herbalist in China might prescribe to an ailing patient there, which holds true for many medications taken in the Western world. So, if Western medicine helps correct the source of a health problem, how could I be against it?

However, I do take issue with Western medical thought for producers’ financial incentive to treat the symptom over the source and generally to ignore the patient, and for patients’ blind faith in this short-sighted, expensive, sloppy-band-aid approach. I also believe the source of our physically painful symptoms frequently lies in the mind and the heart, and few people are willing to take on the arduous work of admitting this and then remedying the most mercurial of our human composition.

Like a growing number of conscious Westerners (undefined term here for the politically correct reading this blog) and like much of the non-Western world until McDonald's bullied its way in, I try to use the food of my life as my holistic medicine. I am usually successful in translating food (and its enchanting power to bring friends together) into a very delicious form of healthy sustenance and bodily care. I am warmed by the thought of my kitchen and table have medicinal powers beyond my understanding. And I humbly try to express this sensation in this blog.

Now Obama is talking about health care (yeah), but not about food production (boo). This approach anything but holistic.  In fact, one of my preferred food writers, Michael Pollan, has just written a very good article explaining how our overlooking diet and food in the health care debate is tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot before a race. Of course, some are thrilled by our invalid foot and even supply the guns so we don’t walk properly – just think of all the money to be made on surgical procedures, sutures, hospital visits, etc. to mend it! With all the commotion over symptomatic improvements in health care, delicious systemic, source-oriented, food-based solutions wait quietly at the finish line.

A fellow blogger/foodie recently brought to my attention a very true phrase from a Renato Sardo (a Brazilian slow foodie!): “food is the thing you do most.” Indeed, food is the truest source of our health or our infirmity. So, I hope the heated discussion about US health care ills also bring a few more into the collective that is already thinking and acting about less expensive, holistic, home-front solutions to improve our interaction with what sustains us.

2 comments:

  1. I like the "food is the thing you do most" comment. But isn't there a fairly big difference between Western and Eastern method - the scientific method? Without it, I could say that giving milk to a person cures them of some illness, but when I give milk to a person with lactose intolerance they will be sickened and I won't know why. Y'know?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The difference is that Eastern medicine tends to look to remedy the source, not the symptom. In terms of scientific method, it's there in Eastern medicine, just not as clearly stated. The idea behind the scientific method is: I have a hunch this will work/I'm going to test it/I'll prove or disprove hunch and act accordingly. That's pretty basic human instinct there. Eastern medicine might test some leaves (based on observing an animal in pain opt for some leaf); while Western medicine might test a pill on a lab rat (based on an earlier study that a similar chemical compound was successful).

    ReplyDelete