Is Your Physician Too Arrogant to Try Something Different?
I monitor a number of different physician-based websites, mostly silently, but on occasion I feel compelled to respond on one of the chains of conversation. In this case, I felt so compelled as I was reading through a thread in which a number of physicians categorically disavowed the validity of complementary and alternative medicine, relegating it to the gallows of snake oil therapies and disreputable quack providers. I am sharing with you my response as I challenge the arrogance of my illustrious colleagues. I don't claim to have all the answers or even the majority of them, but I am willing to look in many different places and at many different options to find the right ones rather than settling for that which is readily handed to me. So here it is! Please share your opinion on the subject!
"Might I remind everybody that what we now consider standard scientific-based medicine, even down to the studying of anatomy were not always considered to be the standards or considered to be quackery or down-right evil incarnate. Might I also remind everyone that many of the therapies that we held as tried and true scientific-based treatments even ten years ago have been thrown by the wayside as worthless or even dangerous. I am a traditional allopath and believe wholeheartedly in what I do, but I have always incorporated CAM with good, objective results. It is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to push off all CAM as quackery or ineffective. Many of these treatments have well-documented scientific evidence outside of this country and are considered standard traditional care in countries who actually have better healthcare results than we do. CAM extended and improved the life of my ill child when traditional medicine failed him. His traditional physician team were sharp enough to embrace it and to use it in their care management plan, much to the benefit of the child. When we moved to another healthcare facility after relocating, it was the pig-headed adherence to some "evidence-based, scientifically supported standards of care that led to the demise of my baby boy in less than six months. These "standard treatments" had already been proven not to work with this child in the previous system and were abandoned by more astute physicians who were willing to think through the child's problems, make their own independent assessments of what worked and what didn't and not just blindly accept "Evidence-based medicine" as the only standard of care. As my mother used to say, "The proof is in the pudding." The child was the evidence and i was always taught to "Treat the patient!" It is difficult to find time, but rather than throwing stones at what we don't know about, it is our responsibility as scientists to research and learn about that which is unfamiliar. Not all CAM is good, but some of it has GREAT benefit. If we educate ourselves, we can sort out the useful from the garbage and use it to the benefit of our patients. Seldom is anything ever ALL bad, so aren't we obligated to arm ourselves with knowledge before we throw out an opinion and treat it as if our word is gospel. As physicians we are an arrogant lot, but we need to remember that the truly great provider who will benefit the patients the most is the one who doesn't just follow the cookbook, but who recognizes the art along with the science and mixes it all up to create a treatment that meets the needs of each and every patient. Evidence-based medicine should not be "one-size fits all!"
Oh yeah, if I might make a suggestion: If you approach your physician with questions or comments about a new treatment or service, whether it be traditional or otherwise and you are automatically shut down without having your interests addressed, LOOK FOR ANOTHER PROVIDER! Yours is either too busy or too arrogant to serve you well! Even Burger King recognizes that ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!
Cheryl BryantBruce, MD
Family and Integrative Medicine "
Cheryl BryantBruce, MD
Family and Integrative Medicine "


Comments