--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote: > At 07:47 AM 6/22/01 +0100,
daniel d wrote:
> >
> >
> Look, every occupational group has both genuine experts and pompous asses
> wrapping themselves in the aura of conventional respectablity. The medical
> profession is no different. Therefore arguments against that profession
> based on the claim that some doctors are a bunch of pompous asses are
> hogwash, unless it can be demonstrated that doctors are more likely to be
> pompous assess than other professionals.
very true, although not the argument I was making. In my experience, doctors tend to be less pompous and asinine than the general population, but that's just muppet-stories.
>
> As far as public health is concerned - yes indeed it was responsible for
> controlling many diseases that used to decimate populations, but what makes
> you think it is NOT a part of western medical science?
My habit of reading pop history books.
> Did it not grew out
> of empirical research on causes of the said diseases on which "western"
> medicine is based?
>
Not in any systematic way, no, if you look at its historical development. The idea that cholera was born by foul water was not popular among doctors of the time. The empirical research on diseases of the slums happened after and concurrently with the public health movement.
> It is one thing to critize a certain approach to medicine (popular mainly
> in the US) that favors costly and oft exotic treatment of illness or
> symptoms over inexpensive prevention and healthy diet. But it is a quite
> different thing to dismiss "western medicine" altogether
I'm confused here. Are you talking about "western medicine" as it actually is, as an actually existing social reality, or as some sort of Platonic form, a sort of idealised society? It strikes me that in defence, you're talking about medicine as a science, whereas in attack the meaning shifts to be about the actual treatment of actual people. You certainly seem to be keen on dealing with homeopathy, acupuncture, etc, as actually practised in the real world.
Furthermore, the overprescription of antibiotics and creation of superbugs is a scientific failing as much as a social one. The decision to prescribe common antibiotics for minor ailments is based on epidemiological and bateriological science, and if it turns out to create superbugs, then that's a failure of the science which said it wouldn't. The idea that "western science" has warned for years that superbugs were a danger just doesn't fit the facts.
> in favor of
> witchcraft and quackery (often even more expensive than standard medical
> treatment), as it is becoming popular in newage circles. What may be
> fashionable for aging hippies in the US or the UK, may be quite offensive
> for people living in countries whose one-fourth of the population is
> infected with AIDS, not to mention malaria, and other treatable diseases.
The perfectly sensible case you're trying to make here is not helped by attacking positions that nobody actually holds. I, for one, have apparently been roused to the suspicion that there must be something to the alternative medicine crowd if these are the best arguments that can be raised against it.
>
> PS. Whatever other faults of Soviet-style "state socialism" (as well as
> Western-European "welfare states") - they had at least one undeniable
> benefit - introduction of "western" medicine to peoples who could not
> previously afford it.
>
I'm saving this for any future discussion of linguistics and literary theory as an example of a sentence with three different types of scare-quote.
d^2
===== ... in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. -- Bertrand Russell
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie