Allopathic vs. Holistic
From the time of Hippocrates (400 BC) there have been two obviously distinct medical approaches, each with clear ideology.
Today these are known as allopathic (orthodox) and holistic (naturopathic) medicines.
Presently allopathic (orthodox) medicine system is predominant.
Historic, social etc. circumstances etc. are nicely presented in an article Allopathic vs. Holistic by Chayne Ellis M.B.A (Acu) B.Sc (Comm).
But what are the distinctions between the allopathic and holistic medicine models?
- (A) treats symptoms
- (H) seeks patterns and causes
- (A) specialized and treats parts of the person
- (H) involves the whole person
- (A) pain and disease are regarded as negative
- (H) pain and "dis-ease" are considered as helpful signals of internal disharmony
- (A) disease is seen as a "bad" condition
- (H) disease is seen as a process
- (A) the body is seen as a machine in good or bad repair
- (H) the body is seen as a dynamic system of body-mind-spirit and of energy fields
- (A) primary intervention is with surgery, drugs, radiation (the "cut-poison-burn" approach)
- (H) minimal intervention with technologies complemented by non-invasive use of such things as diet, nutritional supplements, exercise etc
- (A) primary reliance on quantitative information - lab tests, instruments, charts, etc
- (H) qualitative information, including the client's statements and attitudes, intuition, etc
- (A) the therapist is an authority on whom the patient is dependent
- (H) the client accepts self responsibility and is mainly autonomous
- (A) "prevention" is seen as an annual or more often laboratory tests and examinations
- (H) wholeness in relationships, work, goals, together with good nutrition, etc
Certainly, it is entirely up to anybody to choose a doctor (healer) as well as allopathic (orthodox) or holistic (naturopathic) medicine.
Regretfully, no sick is provided explanations and advices.
Hopefully, such an information could widen anybody's viewpoint.