NEDERLANDS   |   ENGLISH

Email   Print

Doctatorship: Military thinking in medicine

Military thinking has invaded medical thinking. It’s time to replace shock and awe with health and peace.

Dana Ullman | May 2009 issue

Our military thinking and our medical thinking have a surprising amount in common. It isn’t just happenstance that doctors proudly assert that they seek to attack illness, combat disease, kill infectious agents and create a war on cancer or on any disease. Physicians seem so stuck in this medical mindset of militaristic thinking that it isn’t surprising—they have a long history of attacking other viable strategies that seem to be less medical or less militaristic.

To treat a patient, the doctor must provide a diagnosis that determines the existence of a “Western medical disease,” or WMD, even if this diagnosis is sometimes based on faulty medical intelligence or just selective intelligence.

Doctors usually choose to “shock and awe” the body. An elaborate attack ensues, utilizing our most sophisticated technological armamentarium, including the newest painkilling drugs, antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents. This militaristic medical solution takes precedence over other strategies that strive to re-establish health through forces that augment the body’s defenses. While some doctors offer dissident opinions and propose less invasive treatment strategies, these voices are muted by the medical-industrial complex.

The military-industrial complex is but a dwarf next to its medical counterpart. In 2002, for instance, the combined profits of the 10 largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) exceeded the combined profits of the remaining 490 companies ($33.7 billion). The medical-industrial complex is ready, willing and able to declare a scientifically validated victory, even if this triumph is temporary or provides only symptomatic relief. As soon as the shock and awe treatment “works,” doctors proudly declare “mission accomplished.”

However, much to our surprise—but obvious and predictable to many others—thousands of new “terrorist cells” are created. The shock-and-awe use of medication creates its own side effects. The painkilling drugs kill the pain but don’t heal the underlying disease and generate their own tolerance, addiction and pathology. Antibiotics kill the bad germs but destroy the good bacteria in the gut that are so important for digesting and assimilating food. And the chemotherapeutic drugs poison and ravage the immune system, creating a perfect environment for new organisms to infect an increasingly weakened and susceptible body.

However, side effects aren’t really “side” effects at all. From a pharmacological point of view, drugs’ “effects” and “side effects” are arbitrarily determined. Does a bomb that destroys buildings and kills people have one or the other as a “side effect”? Both are the direct effect of the bomb. Likewise, a drug may effectively suppress a symptom, but the cough was the body’s way to clear its bronchial passageway so you could breathe, and the fever was a vital innate strategy the body deployed to burn out infectious organisms. Although the drugs provide temporary relief (and bless them for that), they also tend to suppress the body’s self-healing ability and disrupt its inner ecology. Side effects and collateral damage are accepted as the price of our war on disease, even if varied strategies for creating the peace are inadequately explored.

Doctors may even be able to go to the next step and surgically remove a symptom or an obstructive agent, but the assumption that removing a single symptom or pathological agent will create health is simplistic and incorrect. Getting rid of a symptom, the equivalent of capturing a political leader, doesn’t create a cure or a revolution. As it turns out, conventional medicine often has no tools with which to deal with the more complex problems in play, or no plan to establish health once a symptom is vanquished. The nursery rhyme about the fall of Humpty Dumpty may provide important insights. This old verse acknowledges, “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” Despite this unsuccessful effort, no one recommended the requisition of more horses and more men to solve the problem.

Our medical generals, however, haven’t been as insightful, and a “surge” in military efforts has been prescribed. Typically, solutions to health problems have been a call for more doctors (and more specialists), more drugs (newer and more expensive ones) and more surgery (after all, medical insurance and the increasing national debt will cover it). And if and when critics assert otherwise, they’re branded unpatriotic—or worse, unscientific. It’s as though we’re living under a “doctatorship.”

But now that the body is seriously ravaged, we’re told we can’t leave it on its own. Physicians assert that we must be there to defend it against new attacks, even if our presence creates ever more dramatic terrorist actions, the way our presence in the hospital results in the increased risk of exposure to virulent strains of infection.

Strategies that nourish or nurture the body’s wisdom, treatments that stimulate or augment our inner doctor and therapeutic modalities that help to establish a dynamic balance between the unity of body-mind-nature are called quackery. This name-calling is a wonderfully clever way to trivialize something potentially useful and important. And ironically, physicians often attack alternative healing systems even though these professionals have an inadequate understanding of what the systems are, what history of use and efficacy they’ve been shown to have or the high satisfaction rate in the wake of their use by the public. The fact that physicians maintain such an unscientific attitude toward these alternative, complementary and integrative treatment modalities is part and parcel of the “my country right or wrong” and “our medical care right or wrong” thinking.

It’s time to acknowledge and understand how much the military mindset has invaded and occupied medical thinking. More important, it’s time to explore new solutions to medical and military problems and create greater health and peace.

Dana Ullman is the author of several books on homeopathy, including The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy.

Down with the doctatorship!



Tools: Discuss | Email | Print | RSS | Weekly Newsletter
Save/Share:
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blue Dot
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
Comments (5)

Love this commentary, especially in light of the recent news story of Danny Hauser, the boy who fled forced chemotherapy. How timely. Thanks, Dana!

posted by lotuslady on 5/22/2009 1:33 pm

Yes, particularly in light of the recent news story of Danny Hauser who refused chemotherapy *and is probably going to die as a result*. You missed a bit.

tinyurl.com/q5u7tv tinyurl.com/rddp9y

While D.Ullman makes some interesting and amusing analogies, he fails to mention that the reason these medical treatments are used is that while they are not perfect (hence the millions of pounds spent annually on research into new, safer and more effective treatments), they are proven to work - which is more than can be said for his beloved homeopathy.

Unless of course Mr Ullman can provide one incontrovertible example of a non self-limiting condition being cured by homeopathy, with references, case notes etc..?

posted by Brpwrdnsfrnzy on 5/23/2009 8:41 am

Brpwrdnsfrenzy is one of many embarrassingly uninformed and misinformed "skeptics of homeopathy." Ironically, they think that they are defenders of science, but they don't do their homework and maintain an unscientific attitude towards homeopathy just because they do not "believe" that it can work. They are the new fundamentalists.

To access some high quality research on homeopathy, see these URLs: -- www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,132 -- www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,98

posted by DanaUllman on 5/24/2009 11:06 am

Very disappointing title and article. This article implies military thinking is inferior. As with anything type of thinking there is a range from the genius to the idiot. If anything, military leaders are more motivated to adapt and come up with a winning solution because the alternative is death to themselves, their personnel or unnecessary civilian deaths. In the military's case, if the deaths are civilian it will be highly scrutinized. This is the opposite of the situation with Doctors. Their solution affects their patients and not themselves. If the patient dies, as long as they were within the standard of care they are "Good to Go". If you are trying to draw a parallel between military thinking in Iraq and modern medicine, again you have failed. Military thinking is not what caused the problems in Iraq. It was political thinking. The decision to invade and the major decisions that have made Iraq a mess have been made by politicians, not military leaders. The military has made mistakes as well. This is the same with any endeavor, but they have paid the price in their own blood. If you are implying that the surge was unsuccessful you are probably wrong there as well. The situation in Iraq is extremely complicated and challenging. We seem to be getting at the underlying causes of the problems in Iraq and success seems within reach, however, the draw downs may threaten that. Unlike you, I will see the results first hand because I am here, in Iraq. One parallel that may be valid that you did not draw on is that military and doctor's are working within the framework they are give. In the case of the military it takes orders from and operates within the constraints given by politicians. This is the way it should be because the military operation is a means to a political end. It the case of the doctors they operate within the current system and standard of care. Until that is changes they are limited and will continue to operate the way they have been. You have lost overall credibility with me by making recommendations about finding new military solutions and you obviously don't know much about the military. Is this the case with our medical recommendations as well?

posted by JLS on 6/12/2009 7:45 am

DANA ULLMAN, in this brilliant article, correctly identifies systemically flawed thinking which is endemic in certain quarters of the industrial-pharma-health complex.

The analogies are brilliant and quite apropos.

The first step in forming a solution and fixing our flawed system is to identify the errors in thinking which are often unquestioningly accepted.

Dana has done so here and this article needs to be given the widest possible audience, so timely and important are its implications and conclusions.

As Dana has correctly pointed out in his comments, the pseudo-scientific posturing by self appointed devotees of scientism (not science) is indicative of a kind of denialistic fundamentalism which serves to insulate the "Doctators" from criticism, but the flaws in this kind of position are only too obvious and REAL scientists will have nothing to do with it.

posted by James_Pannozzi on 7/ 6/2009 5:32 pm

Post a comment

You must be a registered user to comment. If you are already registered Click here to login or Click here for our fast, free registration.