No probs IRF. I went gallivanting off-topic meself
So, ahem, in an effort to return to complementary matters I'm bringing. over PW's response to my post on the GOR, to which I'll add my two bobsworth.
A criticism often levelled by doctors at alternative/complementary practitioners, I am thinking particularly of a Report funded some years back by The King's Fund, is that precisely
because practitioners spend time talking with patients and discussing their circumstances, it is impossible to evaluate the therapies properly because of the 1 to 1 input and 'the therapeutic relationship', as though this somehow devalues the treatment. So, on the one hand, it's unlikely the treatment works because it's a load of unproven hokum, or the other hand, well we can't tell if it works or not because there's too much talking and hand holding going on. I've been dealing with this attitude from doctors for years now and I cannot tell you how
it makes me. Particularly when I've seen positive results from my own brand of 'hokum' , where drugs didn't resolve the problem.
Curiously enough, there are almost the makings of a credible argument there - but certainly
not one that should devalue the treatment. If the healing process is in any way psychological, then time with the therapist
will have an impact, and will be part of a mix from which it is very difficult to disentangle any one element of the treatment for evaluation. But if doctors are saying that this means the treatment is not valid, they are simply displaying their ignorance of research methodology.
Indeed, there
are 'almost the makings of a credible argument' here but, in my experience, when the healing process involves both psychological
and physical intervention that is when doctors tend to be dismissive/suspicious We had an excellent homeopath who eventually left, saying 'The doctors don't like it when someone else prescribes pills, do they?'. I knew exactly what she meant. I have faced the same opposition because I use substances that enter the bloodstream, like conventional drugs. That is how they
work. With the best will in the world, if someone is constipated, giving them some oil to sniff isn't going to sort the problem, any more than telling them to gaze at a packet of Senna.
At the risk of sounding cynical, I often wonder if some of the complementary therapies e.g. reflexology, massage, aromatherapy. homeopathy were not so pleasing to receive, not to mention lacking the side-effects of allopathic remedies, would doctors take them more seriously?
Overheard some years ago from a senior doctor talking about comp therapies to visiting doctors - 'Well, they don't actually do anything but the patients like them'. If I hadn't been, metaphorically, gagged and locked away in a broom cupboard at the time I might have had a reply to that
