| Revision as of 05:11, 6 February 2006 editTearlach (talk | contribs)6,734 edits →How Can I Help You?← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:35, 6 February 2006 edit undo86.10.231.219 (talk) →How Can I Help You?: Allopathic or "conventional" medicine?Next edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| :::::Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit ''I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths"''. As you'll gather from the page ], it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. ] 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | :::::Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit ''I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths"''. As you'll gather from the page ], it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. ] 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::There are practical issues over this terminology. Calling the kind of medicine that is currently practised "conventional" means everything else is "unconventional", whereas the Chinese would disagree, as might the Indian sub-continent, such as Ayurvedic practitioners and some others - there are two billion people to choose from in those regions against maybe our 1 billion in the West. They, I think would be rightly miffed by that kind of terminology. | |||
| ::::::Also, treating "disease" and symptoms and relying on a system of pre-packaged commercially available pharmaceuticals is a very distinct approach. It is an identifiable approach and one, not unlike others of course, that has its own limitations. | |||
| ::::::Doctors should be given their skills back in treating the whole patient and looking to deal with causes as well as alleviating symptoms. Many papers published are about finding drug based treatments for symptoms. There do not appear to be so many looking at causes and prevention. There is financial interest here for research funders who are looking to develop new pharmaceuticals. They would not pay for the research otherwise. Why fix it if you can keep treating it over and over and be paid to do so? | |||
| ::::::We really should also consider giving pharmacists back their right to make medicines on the premises and to dispense herbal and other remedies, in conjunction with physicians and broaden the scope of tools available for treatment and perhaps reduce the numbers of them. | |||
| ::::::Having had direct involvement in the conventional pharmaceutical industry's drive to capture herbal knowhow and turn it into packaged pharmaceuticals, I know the considerable effort being made. The value of supposedly "unconventional" herbal remedies are well recognised by those who know and the commercial guys have been putting their money up to prove it for years now. You only have to look at some of the market leaders that have sprung from nowhere in the field. Then there are cosmeceuticals which can take advantage of the medical benefits without having the rigour of clinical trials to contend with. The whole world is being trawled from Sangomas in Africa to traditional Chinese herbal medicines. Yep, "witch doctors" being signed up by conventional drug companies to pass on their knowhow - very cheaply in some cases regrettably for their cultures, which could well end up losing the Sangoma skillsets in the process. The drug companies however have not always been so successful in finding out how these traditional remedies work in order to turn them into packaged pharmaceuticals. The disadvantage of this is that the herbal version rarely emerges as a medicine as no one will invest in trials and market them without any patents to be had. | |||
| ::::::So there is clearly a case for a defined approach to the practice of medicine in our corner of the world. Who knows, maybe the Chinese will turn our practices on their head anyhow and a different term will come to the fore? | |||
| ::::::I hope that explains and that there clearly is a need for a name to describe our western kind of medical practice. ] 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:35, 6 February 2006
Archive1 July 2005 - January 2006
If you have replies to any ongoing discussions now in Archive1, please restart the thread on this page. Tearlach 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How Can I Help You?
You seem to have some concerns expressed here ]
First time I have heard of them. Might be worthwhile spelling out what is bothering you to see if there is anything I can help you with.
Look forward to hearing from you.
The Invisible Anon 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only part pertaining to your edits is my comment on openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree.... In my view, the material at User:86.10.231.219 is well within the area of personal attack, and a breach of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Such 'hit lists' and detailed documentation of perceived wrongs are never seen as creditable to a user. The objections are well summed up at User talk:Jfdwolff#Advice re:86.10.231.219_requested. Tearlach 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does the dialogue here ] today with Kd4ttc assist? The Invisible Anon 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. If you want to infer motives or collect evidence for whatever takes your fancy, there's nothing stopping you doing it privately. Doing it publicly is the breach of the personal attack policy and good faith guideline. Tearlach 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have taken a further look at the personal attack policy. Whilst I am not sure I agree with your interpretation, I will modify my user page in the light of your comments. The Invisible Anon 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks also. You might also reconsider the bit I understand that conventional western medicine is termed "allopathy", and its practitioners are termed "allopaths". As you'll gather from the page Allopathic medicine, it is used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic. Tearlach 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are practical issues over this terminology. Calling the kind of medicine that is currently practised "conventional" means everything else is "unconventional", whereas the Chinese would disagree, as might the Indian sub-continent, such as Ayurvedic practitioners and some others - there are two billion people to choose from in those regions against maybe our 1 billion in the West. They, I think would be rightly miffed by that kind of terminology.
- Also, treating "disease" and symptoms and relying on a system of pre-packaged commercially available pharmaceuticals is a very distinct approach. It is an identifiable approach and one, not unlike others of course, that has its own limitations.
- Doctors should be given their skills back in treating the whole patient and looking to deal with causes as well as alleviating symptoms. Many papers published are about finding drug based treatments for symptoms. There do not appear to be so many looking at causes and prevention. There is financial interest here for research funders who are looking to develop new pharmaceuticals. They would not pay for the research otherwise. Why fix it if you can keep treating it over and over and be paid to do so?
- We really should also consider giving pharmacists back their right to make medicines on the premises and to dispense herbal and other remedies, in conjunction with physicians and broaden the scope of tools available for treatment and perhaps reduce the numbers of them.
- Having had direct involvement in the conventional pharmaceutical industry's drive to capture herbal knowhow and turn it into packaged pharmaceuticals, I know the considerable effort being made. The value of supposedly "unconventional" herbal remedies are well recognised by those who know and the commercial guys have been putting their money up to prove it for years now. You only have to look at some of the market leaders that have sprung from nowhere in the field. Then there are cosmeceuticals which can take advantage of the medical benefits without having the rigour of clinical trials to contend with. The whole world is being trawled from Sangomas in Africa to traditional Chinese herbal medicines. Yep, "witch doctors" being signed up by conventional drug companies to pass on their knowhow - very cheaply in some cases regrettably for their cultures, which could well end up losing the Sangoma skillsets in the process. The drug companies however have not always been so successful in finding out how these traditional remedies work in order to turn them into packaged pharmaceuticals. The disadvantage of this is that the herbal version rarely emerges as a medicine as no one will invest in trials and market them without any patents to be had.
- So there is clearly a case for a defined approach to the practice of medicine in our corner of the world. Who knows, maybe the Chinese will turn our practices on their head anyhow and a different term will come to the fore?
- I hope that explains and that there clearly is a need for a name to describe our western kind of medical practice. The Invisible Anon 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)