Page 29 - Layout 1

often surprising ways), the disadvantage is that if the remedy is not correct you get very little or no response (improvement) in the patient. The prescription has to be based on the individual patient (one dog, cat, or a group of farm animals living together and being ill together). There is no such thing as a generic ‘homeopathic antibiotic’ (luckily there are a number of remedies that are more likely indicated in infections making the job of the prescriber not as complicated as finding a totally new homeopathic medicine for each case).
Integrative medicine already implicitly accepts this existence of various models but usually without mentioning it. In integrative medicine, a team will cooperate and allow the practitioners, who use different ‘illness models’, to come together to offer more than one option to improve the patient. Integrative medicine embraces pluralism in medicine, where all models can work together as equals each adapting and working together to the needs of the individual case.
At all times, science has to be present. But note: not science in the meaning of technical knowledge (technical knowledge has to do with ‘engineering’). Science meaning the testing of practices, hypothesis, systems.
When science test different medicine models, it is important that it also recognises the different models of medicine, as it has to adapt its research to the model to be able to draw valid and useful conclusions. The methodologies are the same for the examination of the different medical models; it is the type of question that is asked and the conclusions that are drawn that need to be consistent with what has been examined. There are many appalling examples (up to the level of EASAC) of how scientists have bent the rules of good objective science to
produce a precluded conclusion in relation to homeopathy and other medicines.
In conclusion
1. There is already a very rich field of experience and knowledge about other models of health and disease ready to be examined, used and introduced in health policy if the scientific community stops being afraid to become interested. (There is quite some pressure (lots of it financial) on scientists not to become involved with alternative medicine techniques.
2. Medicine has to realise it needs to embrace plurality. (Friedemann Matthiessen writes that ‘attempts to favour one single paradigm favours totalitarian thought patterns’.
3. Patients want a treatment: it is difficult to send people away with nothing to do for their animals’ medical issue for instance.
4. Part of the arguments against the use of antibiotics is a need to reduce the feeling of the practitioner that he or she in a way has to ‘fix the problem’. With some patience many things resolve on their own or only need supportive care.
5. Forseriousproblemsweneedseriousmedicine.Whatis seen as serious medicine is mainly based on experience, perception and also the results of research. If research in alternative medicine (of which there is quite a lot of good quality and very positive) is ignored, alternative medicine stands little chance to prove its value.
6. The change will only come if the patients produce enough pressure on the authorities to do so. ‘’We have to evolve from an industry of disease to a system of health’’ (quote from: Jean-Dominique Michel in his blog of 18-3-20)
In practice plurality in medicine is not complicated to achieve. It is a matter of ‘political’ will. A matter of honest cooperation between different approaches.
27