An extended discussion with their homeopath
But we mustn’t say that anti-vaxxers are wrong or that homeopathy is bullshit, because that would be Elitist and Wrong.
One of the attractions of homeopathy is the inclusiveness it offers patients, in contrast to the perceived exclusivity and elitism of medicine and science. Participants are welcomed and can engage in an extended discussion with their homeopath. They are able to develop a longstanding relationship with an individual who gets to know them personally and offers supportive guidance. Consider this in contrast to the doctor’s surgery, often over-subscribed, where patients may be required to wait up to two weeks for an appointment.
I think it would be great if people could get to see doctors more promptly, and if doctors could spend a lot more time talking to patients – but that’s not a reason to embrace homeopathy. Of course “participants” (aren’t they supposed to be patients? seeking treatment?) are welcomed and can engage in an extended discussion with their homeopath. Guess why that is! It’s because the homeopath has nothing else to do. It’s all just magical handwaving, so there’s no need for an examination or a look at the patient’s history, so there’s all the time in the world for a nice long chat. Nobody really needs a homeopath, either, so they can schedule an hour or two for each patient participant.
We don’t really want or need “inclusiveness” from our doctors, apart from the obvious basic inclusiveness of accepting us as patients. We want competence and a working knowledge of medicine.
Corbyn’s critics’ attempt to reinforce the perception that believers in homeopathy are ignorant is divisive political rhetoric and an attempt to discredit a progressive political figure.
It also helps to reinforce the perception that science and the methods that it applies are elitist and exclusionary.
They are “elitist and exclusionary” in the sense that we can’t just pick them up by reading the odd magazine. There is an accumulated body of knowledge behind medical science, and it takes time and effort to learn it. The result is that doctors can quite often fix what’s wrong with you, and that’s a good thing. It’s an improvement on the days when the remedy for most things was bleeding, which tended to kill people. Amateurism isn’t useful in medicine. Sorry to be so elitist not really sorry.
I have developed that with my physician. No, he doesn’t talk with me for an hour, but he does take time to listen to me and deal with what’s wrong, and he remembers little things about me, not necessarily just medical. When I have an event that is mentioned in the paper, he notices it.
I’ve rarely encountered this famous cold aloofness in doctors, except specialists. My GP has always been friendly and open. As for specialists, they are a mixed bag, and often a bit arrogant, but if they can fix what’s wrong with me, I’d rather have them do that than hold my hand and let me cry on their shoulder, or pray with me. There are other people who can do that, and some of them, listening and holding my hand may be all they can do because they lack the knowledge and skills to prescribe medicine or perform surgery.
Competence is more important than warmth when I am ill, at least in my own personal worldview.
This is one of the appealing things about most “alternative therapies”. You’re paying through the nose for the “therapist”‘s time so you get a nice comfy sit down with a cup of tea and have a long chat with someone who is basically there to listen to you talk about your problems. There’s no rush, there’s time to talk about all those neurotic little issues – which we all have but which medical doctors don’t want to hear about because thers’s nothing they can do about them. Then you go home with (or having had) the equivalent of a sugar pill which, yes, probably does do you some good because you’ve performed all the necessary steps to activate the placebo effect. You’ve been spoken to by someone you consider to be in a position of authority, you’ve sacrificed (paid a shitload of money), you’ve undergone/will carry out some ritually prescribed actions (been physically manipulated/massaged/had needles stuck in you, been given magic pills to take a set time every day etc) so it’s no wonder some people swear by them. Between the placebo effect – actually very strong – and regression to the mean (most things get better on their own in a few weeks) people do perceive they are getting an effect.
This has led to suggestions it should be offered on the NHS. Not because it does anything more than placebo but because it’s basically harmless. You see, every GP’s surgery has a small hardcore of patients who are quite well but think they’re not. They have a plethora of physical symptoms, all of which are either self-evidently neurotic or have been investigated in every way possible. They aren’t actually mentally ill as such so referral to the psych services (which are very overstretched) is just bouncing the problem elsewhere. Back in the 1940s and 50s it wasn’t uncommon for this group to be appeased by being prescribed something innocuous – a sugar pill. These days we aren’t allowed to lie to patients (and all medication can be easily looked up on line) so this small coteries of patients often ends up having their symptoms treated because the GP is left with no choice. The suggestion was to employ a homoeopathist or an acupuncturist to deal with these people’s problems. They get their sit down and chat about their issues. They get their sugar pills (or magic water), they go home happy and free up a shit-load of appointments at their GP’s surgery. The GP keeps a weather eye on them to make sure the symptoms that have been interpreted as innocuous don’t tramsform into something treatable. Everyone is happy – except for the folks who make the argument that the NHS should never, under any circumstances, pay for anything that doesn’t work.
I can see both sides. The problem with the current system is that, in order not to lie to this group of patients, we have to poison them, which also costs the NHS money. Overall, a local complementary therapist might well be cheaper – especially if he/she negotiates a lower rate to ensure regular NHS business. It’s not much different to the “exercise prescriptions” that GPs can give out which may include access to local authority gyms.
[…] a comment by Steamshovelmama on An extended discussion with their […]
Steamshovelmama: I’d rather the GP’s office employed a chronic illness counselor for such cases. Not a different system; this would be a member of the staff, trained to talk with patients before or after their actual visit, with an eye to monitoring symptoms and offering that ‘personal touch’ that some want from their caregivers. Splitting the duties between the clinical treatment and the emotional care would be more expensive than ignoring the emotional care outright, but probably less expensive than sending the patient to a separate alt-med caregiver. And counselor would be able to put notes in the patient’s file for the doctor to see regarding changes in symptoms.