Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 8, No. 3 (45)
Contents:
Over the holidays of July 4, 1981, I wrote the
outline and summary for my first book, Biblical/Medical Ethics.
Over the next 3 years, I searched book lists, bibliographies,
journals, periodicals, and asked many people for writings on medical
ethics by Christians.
Roman Catholics had the best material, having a
tradition in medical ethics. Articles and books by Protestants
(other than the subject of abortion) were scarce. And,
unfortunately, what had been written was more secular than Christian
(Biblical).
Mostly, I took the Roman Catholic principles which
had been produced by their melding of Scripture, tradition, and
Church authority, tested them by Biblical theology and ethics, and
thereby developed "Biblical medical ethics." Over these 16 years
have come four books, ten years of the Journal of Biblical Ethics
in Medicine, six years of an AIDS newsletter, eight years of
this Reflections, and various articles in other publications.
I Am Not
Alone Any More!
One critic of Biblical/Medical Ethics
suggested that I wrote as a "voice crying in the wilderness." That
is, I wrote as though I were the only one writing such material. His
impression was accurate. No one at that time had produced anything
substantial on what I call Biblical medical ethics. But, I
was not alone as far as Biblical ethics was concerned. Gordon Clark,
Carl F. H. Henry, John Murray, and many other evangelical
theologians had developed sound Biblical principles that I could
apply to medicine. Occasionally, I found specific medical
applications, like a short section in Henry Stob's Ethical
Reflections.
In 1985, John Jefferson Davis wrote, Evangelical
Ethics, which focused mostly on medical ethical issues. Since
then, a few other noteworthy books have been written: John Frame's
Medical Ethics, the Finebergs' Ethics for a Brave New
World, and J. Robertson McQuilkin's An Introduction to
Biblical Ethics.
However, for the most part, Christians working in
and writing on medical ethics is no longer a wasteland. Their works
and organizations are proliferating like kudzu* -- and at least one
seems more the work of the Angel of Light.
Spiritual
Healing Practices
Recently, I received a brochure for "Spirituality
and Healing in Medicine - II," a conference that focuses on the
"positive" benefits of "spiritual" approaches in medicine. At least
one key figure (and I think, several others) in this endeavor is
David B. Larson, M.D., a professing Christian who has compiled
research on the health and healing benefits of "spiritual"
practices, primarily Christianity.
Other "spiritual" practices include Jewish, (Roman)
Catholic, Islamic, Hispanic-Pentecostal, Christian Science,
Buddhist, African, and others. What, pray tell, does the God of
Truth have to do with most of these "spiritual" practices. "Or
what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in
common with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:16, NASB -- read the
other verses in that context).
Dr. Larson and other leaders of this conference
rejoice that medicine is finally recognizing the medical benefits of
"spirituality." But, I challenge them. Is gaining acceptance for the
heresy of Christian Science, the paganism of African spirituality,
or the Eastern darkness of Buddhism a righteous goal for Christians?
Such an eclectic approach is more an entry for the Angel of Light
than the Triune God.
Dr. Larson heads an organization called the National
Institute of Healthcare Research. Organizations in his "network"
include the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS), Christian
Legal Society, Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Nurses
Christian Fellowship, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
In the past, you have heard my criticisms of CMDS
and the bioethics center. It seems that the more "Christian" medical
ethics grows, the worse it gets. It is becoming an eclectic
mish-mash that seems to welcome anyone but those with clear and
sound Biblical principles.
But, then, multiculturalism is a major theme of
modern culture. Let me make it simple. Every person and
belief is either pro-Christ or anti-Christ. Jesus said, "He who
is not for me is against me."
Few (truly) evangelical leaders either have the
discernment and/or the courage to challenge any other leader.
Virtually, anything goes as "Christian." At one time the World
Council of Churches and other liberal "Christians" were the enemy of
the Gospel. Now, the enemy is fellow professing evangelicals. In
fact, we may have run out of labels, as "evangelical" can mean
almost anything today. However, we still have "Biblical." Few seem
to want that label.
In my early days in medical ethics, I felt very much
alone in my efforts. Suddenly, in 15 years, there is a glut of
books, conferences, and organizations on "Christian" medical
ethics.
In the beginning, there was little to refute and
much to build. Today, refutation is impossible, simply on the basis
of volume. And, what has been built are multi-cultural towers of
Babel that obscure the small structures of truth that have been
built.
I will press on as one "still small voice" (along
with a few others). Not only do I pray for bold and righteous
leaders, but condemnation on those who blur the Light. They will
reap what they sow.
* This reference to kudzu is my second. Kudzu was
imported into the South to prevent erosion. It is a rapidly growing
and spreading vine. It literally covers tall trees and abandoned
buildings. It is unedible by any mammal and has no food value. Not
only is it worthless apart from its original purpose, it is a threat
to other valuable vegetation.
Dr. Kevorkian Is
Pre-Occupied With Death
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is not only a practicing
pathologist and assistant to suicides, he does oil paintings. His
subjects are "severed heads, moldering skulls, and rotting corpses."
Also, a compact disk will soon be released with his music, "A Very
Still Life: The Kevorkian Suite." (UFL Pro Vita, May 1997, p.
2)
Commentary: Dr. Kevorkian is not just another
physician helping others to end their suffering. He is severely
pre-occupied with death. His state of mind is obvious to anyone who
sees through the thin veneer of his "compassion."
That he gets widespread support is an indictment of
our culture. Any society with common decency would recognize him as
the aberrant person that he is. It is a strange quirk of humanity
(and an irony of Providence) that such people become leaders of
movements that cause widespread death and destruction. They are not
only political leaders like Stalin and Hitler, but idealists and
practitioners of aberrant thinking. When God goes, anything goes.
The Population Doomsayers May Have It Backward: Tragic Irony
"Stephen Mosher (president of Population
Research Institute, writing in the Wall Street Journal,
February 10, 1997) told of the U.S. Census Bureau reporting that
the globe's population grew by only 79.6 million in 1996,
adding, 'It is around 20 million less than the 100 million
figure alarmists like Vice President Algore were tossing around
until recently'.... (Mosher) saw (sic) population peaking at 7
billion or so in 2030 and then begin (sic) a long descent. He
concludes, 'Humanity's long-term problem is not going to be too
many children, but too few." (UFL Pro Vita, May 1997, p.
3)
Commentary: Beginning with Malthus is the 18th
century, the projections of population doomsayers have all been
wrong. Mankind is quite creative in devising its own limitations and
destruction. More mass killing has taken place in the 20th century
than all the previous centuries combined. The more man becomes
"civilized" (without God), the more he becomes barbarian.
One thoroughgoing message of the Bible is that
"life" is a creation and provision of God. Not just "abundant" life
that we Christians are fond of saying -- but plain earthy physical
life as well.
No, man cannot live either physically or spiritually
"by bread alone." God is life. Any direction or action apart from
Him brings death. Not only is death the result of the "wages of
sin," but also idealist thinking that excludes God.
It is a tragic irony. Man's greatest fear is death
(Hebrews 2:15), yet the more he tries to achieve life without God,
the more he finds death. With the same technical achievements that
advance modern medicine, abortions by the millions are the solution
to inconvenient pregnancies. With the idealist thinking of utopian
dreamers, millions (billions?) have died. A song of the '60s has
this verse, "When will they ever learn, When will they e-v-e-r
learn?" Only in the afterlife, when it is too late.
The
EPA Jumps the Gun -- Again
In a paper in the June 7, 1996, issue of Science,
John MacLachlan of Tulane University reported the dangers of
synergism (enhanced effects of one chemical by another) of
"endocrine disrupters" (hormone-like estrogenic substances) that
included breast cancer, prostate cancer, and birth defects. The
study became headline news around the country. The EPA with the
support of Congress "quickly mandated further chemical screening and
testing."
"But hold on. According to the most recent meeting
of the Society of Toxicology... so far, not one of five separate
laboratory teams can replicate MacLachlan's synergistic effects." (Vital
Stats, May 1997, p. 2)
Commentary: Are you getting as tired as I am of
hearing that everything that we eat poses some hazard? (I literally
mean "everything," as I think every food substance and additive has
at some time been attacked.) While I can tolerate the hyperbole of
the press, the regulations upon which such reports are based pose a
far greater hazard to life and property than the "toxins"
themselves. The government "protected" us with seat-belts and
children died. The government mandated the removal of asbestos from
buildings and caused more morbidity and mortality than leaving it
alone would have. And the beat goes on.
Too Much Juice Is
Just the Right Amount
"For the past 30-40 years, fruit-juice
consumption by infants and young children has increased. Surveys
show that by 12 months of age, 90% of infants consume fruit
juices. Children under five consume more juice than any other
age group, an average of nine gallons per child per year."
Safe Consumption Guidelines. ... (The
introduction of juices should occur) near the end of the first
year of age in most infants, once they are eating more solid
foods. A serving of three to four ounces a day is sufficient at
this time and meets vitamin C requirements. (Update Nutrition,
May/June 1997, pp. 1-2)
Commentary: Wow! Nine gallons a year. What a
quantity! Dangerous.
Uh, let's see. Nine gallons is 1152 ounces, divided
by 365 days in one year. The answer is 3.16 ounces in a day. Too
much or just right?
Yes, dear readers, this is the actual update from
the Family Health Branch of the Division of Public Health, Georgia
Department of Human Resources, entitled, "How Much Is Too Much?"
Do you ever wonder if some bureaucrats just have too
much time on their hands and have to create busy-work for
themselves? I can just see a parent dragged into the Department of
Family and Children Services for giving her child too much juice --
whatever that amount is. (I wish I were being facetious, but the
real danger is there!)
Cancer Mortality Rates Are Declining: Another Pillar for Modern
Medicine
"Death rates from cancer have begun to decline
after decades of continuous rise, according to a study by UAB
(University of Alabama - Birmingham) epidemiologist Philip Cole,
MD, and oral pathologist Brad Rodu, DDS. The two explain in
their report published in Cancer that cancer deaths declined
3.1% between 1990 and 1995. The general reasons for the decline
include: earlier diagnosis, better therapies, and targeted
education about prevention. More specifically, 40% of the
decline results from smoking cessation efforts." (UAB Insight,
Spring 1997, p. 6)
Commentary: The war on cancer began in the late
1960s. Until this report, we were losing. Now, we are winning,
thanks to modern medicine. Or, are we?
Diseases wax and wane for unexplainable reasons.
Rheumatic fever became rare before the common use of antibiotics to
treat "strept throat," its precursor. Tuberculosis virtually
disappeared before effective antibiotics were available.
Atherosclerosis of the heart arteries has declined out of proportion
to preventive and treatment efforts.
But, modern medicine gets credit for the "wanes" and
gets research monies for the "waxes." Take away the "wanes" and
modern medicine might be found to be an emperor with no clothes.
But, cancer is a multi-factorial problem. Perhaps,
the decline is real. Perhaps, medicine has contributed. However, "a
British review," casually mentioned in the above article, reported
that "advances in medical care were minimal contributors." The
article itself attributed 40% of the decline to smoking cessation.
Stay tuned.
From the Late, Great Mike Royko: Insight into Encounter Groups
From a letter and answer column by the late Mike
Royko. (Chicago Tribune, March 20, 1997, Section 1, p. 3)
"ANN SPAETH, NICEVILLE, FLA: I have read your
columns relating to late-term abortions. I have been waiting for
someone to address the ridiculous aspect of a bunch of MEN
piously denouncing abortion.
"The problem is, neither you nor these other men
have a clue as to what is involved in carrying an unwanted
child, nor will you ever do so.
"COMMENT: True, a man doesn't know what it is
like to bear a child. On the other hand, I don't know a woman
who knows what it feels like to have a hole poked in the base of
her skull and her brains sucked out, although some talk as if
they might have experienced it."
Commentary: Mr. Royko skewered the prevalent notion
that no one can know how another person feels until they have
experienced the same situation himself or herself (to be fair to Ann
Spaeth).
"Whoa, Ed," you say. "What relevance is that to
Biblical Reflections." The growth of special encounter groups is
based upon the notion that only others with a similar experience can
comfort each other. And, these groups among Christians are growing
by leaps and bounds. There are groups for grief, exercise, weight
reduction, singles-never-married, singles-divorced, drug and alcohol
"addiction," etc., etc.
In the early 1970s, Jay Adams wrote on
life-dominating problems in his Christian Counselor's Manual.
All life-dominating problems are similar in their effects and how
they ought to be dealt with. Saint Paul wrote, "No temptation has
taken you except [what is] human; but God [is] faithful, who will
not allow you to be tempted above what you are able. But with the
temptation, [He] will also make the way out, so that you may be able
to bear [it]." (I Corinthians 10:13, LITV).
"Report Cards," Outpatient Medicine, and Alternative Medicine
Hilton Terrell, M.D., Ph.D.
I am receiving more and more "report cards" from
payers for medical services. A recent one was a novelty. It appears
that the state of South Carolina (where I am licensed and practice)
is trying to raise physician awareness of the costs of home health
services expended on Medicare patients. I have a few observations on
the matter.
(1) They listed me as having ordered only one set of
services in the form of 19 visits for speech therapy. I have no
recollection of this record and a very low view of the general
proven effectiveness of speech therapy. I can find little in the way
of evidence for its usefulness. Point: the report cards I receive
are full of enormous holes in accuracy, relevance, and
comprehensiveness. They often miss the point. I nearly always look
very "good," i.e., cheap, on these reports. Nevertheless, I am aware
of the many assumptions that underlie comparisons of this kind.
(2) The state of South Carolina recently notified
primary care physicians that we could bill for our supposed
oversight of the home health services we are authorizing. The
accompanying explanation of what was required to substantiate a bill
and the limitations on what could be billed for, as well as the
amounts they paid, took away with the left hand what the right hand
gave. To establish what they wanted for billing would consume in
billing costs what they would pay, leaving the physician still
unpaid for the oversight.
(3) One of the selling points of home health is that
it costs less than hospitalization or nursing home care. One of the
reasons that it does cost less, however, is that nursing home care
and hospitalizations carry a burden of regulatory review and the
like that enormously raises the expense. Now, we may see the
regulators extending their scope to home health and office practice,
such as they did with Certified Laboratory Improvement Act. The
costs for provision of care in outpatient settings is rising.
Point: the problem is not the particular regulations
or the administration of them, it is the whole idea of regulation by
others than the recipients of the services. It is the king's
horsemen riding through the marketplace, overturning tables, pulling
down the awnings, seizing the scales, and breaking open the animal
pens. It is a struggle for power. The regulators push to usurp power
over simple, personal, economic decisions. The sheer number of these
transactions, the private nature of them, and the uncertainties (as
to value and benefit) require that these transactions be determined
between the physician and patient. For regulators to strive for
conditions to be otherwise is to strive to be omniscient,
omnipresent, and omnipotent. They want to be God.
(4) The advance of regulators and price-fixers into
the practice of orthodox outpatient medicine will stimulate the
growth of the already-thriving "alternative medicine" fields. One of
the chief attractions of alternative medicine is the freedom enjoyed
by the practitioners. As long as the practitioners are willing to
stay on the outside of the fence of conventional respectability, big
organization, and big bucks, they will be free. (None of this, of
course, speaks to the issue of effectiveness of the alternatives,
which I doubt.) Their patients feel free. Is this the reason for
the recent moves by organized medicine to establish a beachhead in
alternative medicine? Does organized medicine want to court, corral,
and then control the freedom-lovers in alternative medicine?
This possible tactic reminds me of the matter of
government-paid vouchers for use in private education. If the
statists were smart, they would support the idea. Once they had
control of the money, they could begin to dictate private education.
Rather than building private education, the effect would be to
transform private education into public education. Though I am
conventional enough to have a low view of the general effectiveness
of alternative medicine, I support the desirability of having some
kind of competition on the field for the mainstream. The flight to
alternatives reminds the monied insiders that they are not God,
reminds the patients of the desirability of freedom, and even
threatens the hegemony of the FDA over "what works." If the
proponents of alternative medicine, many of whom seem to be
Christian, are smart, they will resist overtures by conventional
medicine to become part of the in-group.
The
FDA Opens the Gates in Its Own Dam -- At a Price!
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), much
criticized in recent years for causing inordinate delays in the
marketing of new drugs, developed a few years ago a fast track
system to help solve the problem. It can charge the applicant
pharmaceutical companies if they want their drugs reviewed more
rapidly through "user fees." They expect to collect about a third of
a billion dollars over a five-year period through this program.
Ordinarily, user fees are to be preferred, lodging
as they do the costs closer to where the demands and benefits are,
while sparing those who don't use the service. Taxes on gasoline are
somewhat similar, in that the more gasoline you purchase the more
you likely use the roads upon which those gasoline taxes are
(supposedly) spent.
The "user fee" concept, however, is not quite a good
fit for this action of the FDA. A better analogy would be to imagine
an existing highway, representing the development and marketing of
medications by private producers of pharmaceuticals. The
manufacturers built and maintained the road.
Then, one day, the FDA is created and begins to
repair the highway -- closing lanes, requiring bridges to be
rebuilt, and holding up traffic while the wording on the road signs
is changed to suit their fancy. Traffic backs up. An FDA official
walks down the line of idling vehicles and tells you that, for a
fee, you will be allowed to move through a special lane set aside
for you. Otherwise, you will sit for a long time. This is not truly
a "user fee," because the FDA is not fulfilling an existing market
demand. Rather, the agency is creating a demand through its
oppression of a market. The demand is for relief from the
oppression.
One way to evaluate the favorable reaction of the
drug companies to this "user fee" is that it feels so good when your
pain is reduced that you can forget who it was that caused your
pain. The howls of the pharmaceutical industry are not to be taken
as completely genuine. The pharmaceutical industry really would not
want to function without the FDA, since it has the effect of
granting that industry a monopoly on producing medications by
protecting the companies from competition from smaller would-be
producers. Only the really big boys can play the game, since the
FDA's regulations raise the cost of development and marketing of
medicines to very high levels. These costs are recouped from the
consumer, who has fewer recourses for medicine in this controlled
market. Large drug companies have done exceptionally well for
themselves in this system.
Viewed from an FDA angle, the user fee plan cuts
that agency in for a piece of the spoils of the pharmaceutical
industry. It sounds harsh, but this system is redolent of economic
fascism. A powerful central government grants certain favors to an
industry, and in return that industry bows to considerable
regulation and control. The tax money tap which funded the central
government's power now has a faltering flow. It couldn't supply
enough and a large backlog of profitable drugs had accumulated
behind the FDA's blockade. Money was being lost and some political
liabilities were accumulating for the government. What better place
to go to make up the difference and look like a rescuer than to the
spoils of the favored industry?
What authorization is there in Scripture for Caesar
to act in such a fashion as this? Does such regulation constitute
"the punishment of evildoers?"
Vol. 11, No. 3 (70) May 1997
Life Insurance
for Those Infected With HIV
"Guarantee Trust Life Insurance, a Glenview-
(Illinois) based company that specializes in insuring high-risk
individuals, is test marketing the coverage (of life insurance
to people infected with HIV). 'From a life insurance risk
perspective, we believe many otherwise healthy HIV-positive
individuals are more appropriately viewed as having a treatable
chronic illness rather than a terminal disease,' said Richard
Holson, president of the 60-year-old company."
"A fairly healthy 30-year-old man who doesn't
smoke would pay about $55 a month for a $50,000 universal life
policy, said Monty Edson, Guarantee Trust senior vice president
for marketing. If that same person were HIV positive, the policy
would cost about $300 a month. (The Augusta Chronicle,
April 16, 1997, p. 12A)
Commentary: There has to be more to this story than
appears in the article (not printed in its entirety above). With
almost 70 percent of new AIDS cases occurring in homosexuals or
IV-drug abusers, a life expectancy that would cause Guarantee Trust
to break even is quite optimistic. I suspect that this company will
shift funds within its own policies to cover this high-risk
population or will participate in some high-risk pool with other
companies, as it gives favoritism to people with HIV. Sometimes,
these shifts are mandated by state law.
I don't know the details. I am just suspicious.
More
Realism in HIV Reporting
"The HIV Prevention Act, introduced this month
by Rep. Tom Coburn, MD, (R-Okla.) will be the first attempt in
the 105th Congress to test whether ... medical advances provide
enough policy-changing momentum to mandate that HIV be treated
like other epidemics.
"These treatments offer many people with HIV the
potential to control the disease possible with other chronic
conditions, such as diabetes." (American Medical News,
March 24/31, 1997, pp. 1, 31)
Commentary: The efficacy of increased longevity by
new drugs for HIV/AIDS is an optimistic projection of current
studies, not proven research. Yet, for the first time, AIDS
advocates and AIDS realists may be on the same side of the mandatory
reporting issue. While tracking and control is not the goal of this
proposed new law, its effect will be the reporting that ought to
have been present since HIV/AIDS was proven to be a sexually
transmitted disease.
If Your Condom Breaks, Go to the ER!
"From the limited data available, it appears
that the risk of HIV infection after one episode of anal or
vaginal intercourse or sharing a syringe exposed to HIV is
roughly the same as after an occupational needle stick: 0.3
percent (1 in 333 occurrences).
"Now that health care workers are offered
anti-HIV drugs after needle-sticks, shouldn't prophylaxis be
available to people exposed through sex or intravenous drug
use?" (Family Practice News, March 1, 1997, p. 20)
Commentary: Why not have ERs offer such prophylaxis
for HIV? After all, ERs now offer post-coital pregnancy "prevention"
(actually early abortion) medically. The message is, "If people
aren't responsible, let's offer a safety net for whatever they do."
After all, is not HIV/AIDS and our management how our society is
defined?
One interviewee was more in touch with reality about
proposed research for this idea. "The idea of 12,000 post-coital
people racing to the emergency room to get post-exposure treatment
or a placebo was a bit bizarre!"
I would add, "Quite bizarre indeed!"
Pessimism in the
Treatment of HIV/AIDS
Despite "extremely encouraging results," there are
strong reasons for "uncertainty" and "caution."
-
"Few patients have been studied for longer than
2 years."
-
"These drugs do not work for all people."
-
"Many patients have serious side effects which
prevent them from
taking the drugs."
-
"The long term consequences of taking these
drugs for many years is
unknown."
-
"These drugs are extremely expensive
(approximately $12,000 per year)"
(And we thought that AZT was expensive! -- Ed)
-
These drugs will have complex interactions with
each other.
-
"HIV can develop resistance to each of the new
drugs."
-
"Persons at risk may be misled into reverting to
unsafe behaviors."
Commentary: In their own words, these are
significant reasons to question the current optimism of HIV/AIDS
treatment and to attribute a decreased mortality rate among HIV/AIDS
patients -- a decrease that does not include women and heterosexual
men.
More on
Alternative Medicine
Dear Ed:
You asked an interesting question in your March 1997
Reflections - "Where are the hospitals and emergency rooms of
alternative medicine?
"First, I would like to note that in 1900, there
were 22 colleges of homeopathic medicine, over 100 homeopathic
hospitals, and about 15,000 homeopathic pharmacists. When I went
through pharmacy school in the late '30s in Baltimore, we had half a
dozen or so homeopathic pharmacies in the city and were given
instruction in the preparation and use of homeopathic medications.
Talking to homeopathic physicians of that time and even after I came
to Richmond explains clearly to me why we don't have homeopathic
hospitals today.
In a nutshell, government regulations and members of
the allopathic American Medical Association and Boards of Medicine
were all exerting pressure to squeeze these people out of
"unscientific" medical practice. Power makes right, you know! Most
of the homeopathic physicians were denied practice privileges in
mainline hospitals following the squeezing out of the homeopathic
hospitals by regulation and the great move to improve medical
education in the early 1900s. And certainly, the discovery of
nitrous oxide, bacteria, general anesthesia, salvarsan, and
antibiotics were major factors!
Today, the alternative people have their hospitals
in "clinics" and "hotels" and retreat centers around the country.
Every alternative practitioner knows that cancer treatment brings
the wrath of the establishment on them and most of these are
overseas, offshore, or in Mexico. You say they don't treat because
it is "bad for business." Indeed, one cancer patient dying in an
alternative setting seems to generate all kinds of pressure to get
those quacks out of there so people can get their cancers "healed"
in "approved" hospitals (or die there).
I agree that the efficacy of alternative medicine
is no more proved than mainline medicine (Ed's emphasis).
However, most alternative practitioners have an approach to medical
practice that is totally different from that which you and I were
taught. They usually take into account the total person, body, soul,
and spirit, and unfortunately many get into non-Christian
approaches. Moreover, they talk about health and seek to restore and
maintain health instead of treating symptoms. Indeed, the approach
to the whole person seems to have been lost in modern scientific
medicine, which may be one reason why behaviors are medicalized.
Reflectively, I find much of this discourse very
sad. Hospitals historically have had a strong Christian interface.
Today, the Catholics and Adventists still have a presence, but it is
hard to tell much difference between some of these and secular
institutions. I wonder how much accreditation and professional
pressure has to do with what one can do in a hospital?
I find it interesting, too, that you say mainline
medicine has "some semblance of science." Here again, you are in a
"catch 22" situation when you practice alternative medicine. The
"science" now required to prove efficacy is so expensive that the
procedures and medications are never going to be approved. Of
course, that is not required of surgery, since each case is an
individual patient. Curiously, most physicians practice a kind of
"alternative" medicine anyway. For years, surveys have shown that
25% of the prescriptions written for patients were for "unapproved"
indications, which could be defined as "unscientific" or
alternative.
I recognize that there is a place for conventional
medicine, but I don't think you are being fair in saying that
Christians who advocate alternatives are deceived. I am not even
sure why you say that. I know several physicians who practice
alternative medicine as well as conventional medicine, and I don't
think they are deceived. Perhaps you meant that some of the
practitioners have stepped into non-Christian philosophies as part
of their alternative practice? Reflectively, my views may be tilted
because medicine that was practiced when I was a youngster was
mostly "alternative," and it is not clear to me that scientific
medicine has done as much to improve life span or quality as it
claims. Oh yes, I know about antibiotics and laser surgery, but I
also know about 100,000 or more deaths incurred annually through
medication misadventures, 15% of hospital beds occupied because of
drug misuse and hospital infections incurred at a 10 to 15% rate.
Maybe Lister strived in vain! Who knows?
I really enjoy Biblical Reflections. You are
daring enough to talk about things that others won't and expose
yourself to attack from others who hold equally strong opinions of a
contrarian nature. I appreciate you and Hilton Terrell for your
forthrightness and willingness to submit your ideas for digestion
and reflection. God bless.
Sincerely,
Warren E. Weaver
Richmond, Virginia
Dear Ed:
Since I am under usual circumstances your biggest
booster, I trust you will remember that the wounds of a friend are
faithful as I bring these two criticisms.
First, in your March 1997 Biblical Reflections
on page 2, I was astonished to read, "A person who is not in charge
of his own destiny is a slave, that is, he is owned. The
Biblical law recognizes voluntary slavery, because there are men who
prefer security to freedom, but it strictly forbids involuntary
slavery except as punishment" (R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of
Biblical Law, p. 120).
This is a false statement. The Bible legitimizes
slavery by conquest (warfare) for life of the aliens around the
Hebrews, and children born to such slaves were also slaves for life.
Nor do I know any place in the New Testament that overthrows
involuntary slavery for life, even as it was practiced under the
much more stringent Roman slave system. I can't help that Rushdoony
said it, it's still false. Furthermore, what the slave-owner owned
was not the slave, but the right to the slave's labor. It's an
important distinction.
Second, you seem to be waging a war against
alternative medicine ("Where Are the Hospitals and Emergency
Rooms?", p.8). I believe you will agree that for every one victim of
alternative medicine you can show, orthodox medicine can brag 100.
The point is not alternative medicine or orthodox medicine, the
point is, what is the truth? What works to heal? Why does government
interfere with people's health decisions? Why does a certain group
hold a monopoly on practicing medicine? The very reason alternative
quacks make so much headway is that people don't trust the orthodox
medical establishment (in addition to the sinful folly of man, of
course). Some alternative people may be quacks, but so are lots of
physicians, like the Memphis orthopedic surgeon I watched while I
worked my way through college in surgery who used to come in drunk
on Saturday mornings to do hip surgery on old ladies; like the
Arkansas gynecologist who yanked out wombs from every woman he could
deceive into worrying about her pre-cancerous condition -- whether
it was pre-cancerous or not.
There is no point in multiplying these stories. I'm
sure you have plenty about alternative practitioners, and so do I.
But what makes people the willing victims of alternative medicine
also makes them the willing victims of orthodox medicine, namely,
the worship of someone or something other than the one true living
God. Just on the meager basis of relative frequency, I believe there
is a lot more idolatry of orthodox medicine in America than idolatry
of alternative medicine.
Yours in the bonds of Christ,
Franklin Sanders
Memphis, Tennessee
Ed's Note on
Letters
I stand wounded -- by friends -- as Mr. Sanders
says. I withdraw my criticism of the lack of emergency rooms and
hospitals run by alternative medicine because of restrictive and
punitive state and federal laws.
Dr. Weaver brings a historical view that we moderns
tend to forget, if we ever knew it. We can only imagine what the
marketplace of medical and preventive treatments might look like
today, if allopathic medicine had not been given state sanction.
I do not think that we would have most of the
antibiotics and other expensive drugs available today. We would not
have MRIs and other expensive diagnostic and treatment machines. We
may or may not have laser surgery and other highly technical
procedures. Most or all of these have occurred because of
state-protected or -funded endeavors. (See Dr. Terrell's treatise on
the FDA.)
Mr. Sanders nails the bottom line that the victims
of either alternative or orthodox medicine are such because they
"worship someone or something other than the one true living God."
Dr. Weaver laments that wholism has disappeared from allopathic
medicine. But, while alternative medicine often seeks this wholism,
it is often not that of the "one true and living God." In fact, as
he suggests, alternatives may be occult and even frankly evil.
I think some of the criticism of these two letters
was unwarranted. I challenge anyone to find someone Biblically
oriented within allopathic medicine who has been more
critical of it than I (and Dr. Terrell) have been. Neither the
Christian Medical and Dental Society, The Center for Bioethics and
Human Dignity, the Christian Medical Foundation, The Christian Life
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, nor any other group
or author (that I know of) have been so critical.have not.
Another bottom line is "some semblance of science"
raised by Dr. Weaver. Yes, the Food and Drug Administration has
raised the threshold for new drugs too high. However, remove the FDA
and other regulatory bodies, and if there is no semblance of science
in allopathic or alternative medicine, then we ought to do nothing
for patients, for what we do is totally random.I have watched
antibiotics destroy various infections. I have seen the injured walk
and run again after severe and crippling accidents. I have seen
severe anemias (low hemoglobin or red blood cell counts) restored to
(more or less) normal from appropriate treatment. I have seen
hyperthyroid (overactive thyroid gland) patients stabilized by
medication and/or surgery. I saw my second grandson (Reflections,
March 1997), safely delivered because of modern techniques and
equipment.
Would these have occurred without modern medicine? I
am very, very doubtful. Would some have had the same outcome with
only alternative medicine? I am very, very doubtful.
I believe that with careful scrutiny of the medical
literature and debate among Biblically wise physicians, a reliable,
yes, scientific practice of allopathic medicine could emerge and be
built upon. But, we are hampered by extreme biases and a lack of
Biblical knowledge. We can't even agree on a Biblical faith or
understanding of the mind and behavior.
What does alternative medicine have to offer?
Frankly, I don't know. Within myriad approaches and treatments,
there are likely some that are valid. But, they should not be
advanced on anecdotal evidence alone. Neither must they meet the
stringent criteria of the FDA. Somewhere in between, however, some
science (systematic follow-up and documentation) must exist or else
anyone can do anything for any condition.
Medical and biological research has produced an
enormous amount of knowledge on animal and human physiology. Can
alternative medicine advance itself without or contrary to that
physiology? Possibly, but not likely. Let me stand on record (again
and again) as being against medical licensure and a totally open
market for all practitioners of allopathic and alternative medicine.
But, let me also stand on record that there is a science that must
be applied to all medical practices, if we ever hope to have
anything of value to offer our patients.
While little discernment exists within allopathic
medicine as to what is and is not valid, allopathic medicine is far
ahead of both willingness and practice by alternative medicine for
scientific validity.
What About
Slavery?
Mr. Sanders challenges me on the Biblical criteria
for slavery. It is an issue worth developing for modern Christendom,
but not here. In a cursory review of sources available to me, I
could not come up with a satisfactory summary of Biblical slavery.
Until some other reader enlightens me or I find a good reference,
then I will leave the issue of slavery. The use of the concept for
my rejection of cloning as immoral seems valid.
|
