Question:

In article <19990401093436.29254.00000…@ng-fz1.aol.com>, Hypoint <hypo…@aol.com> writes >This phrase (prevention vs treatment of active disease) was in a post of >Terri’s in responding to Carol.  I think it is the crux of a lot of the >discussion on asm. ><thought> >Western medicine has been heavy on treatment of active disease vs prevention. >It has been criticized for that.  Now it appears to be moving glacial-like >towards  prevention.  It is being criticized for that. ></thought> >Anyone else want to share their thoughts on this?

I think it only goes to show how very recent modern medicine is as a ’science’. As such there is still much to be learned and the pendulum is swinging quite violently. Just this week I was comparing modern obstetric practise with my experiences less than 30 years ago. Go back 100 years and the changes would be even more dramatic. And this is a field as old as mankind which does not usually involve disease. I’m not sure that it’s true to say that prevention is a new way. 150 years ago the fight was against bad sanitation and dirty water. 100 years ago safe surgical methods were being developed. 50 years ago the struggle was to prevent the childhood killers: diptheria, smallpox, polio etc. In the west, these battles have largely been won and the battle is against cancers and heart disease. So far there are few completely effective treatments so prevention seems the only option. I’m not aware of any criticisms of this approach. <cynic mode on> Would this perhaps come from the medical profession in areas where their income might drop if we all became healthy by eating correctly and taking more exercise? <> Joanna

Response:

This phrase (prevention vs treatment of active disease) was in a post of Terri’s in responding to Carol.  I think it is the crux of a lot of the discussion on asm. <thought> Western medicine has been heavy on treatment of active disease vs prevention. It has been criticized for that.  Now it appears to be moving glacial-like towards  prevention.  It is being criticized for that. </thought> Anyone else want to share their thoughts on this? Wendy hypo…@aol.com

Response:

On 1 Apr 1999 14:34:36 GMT, hypo…@aol.com (Hypoint) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->This phrase (prevention vs treatment of active disease) was in a post of >Terri’s in responding to Carol.  I think it is the crux of a lot of the >discussion on asm. ><thought> >Western medicine has been heavy on treatment of active disease vs prevention. >It has been criticized for that.  Now it appears to be moving glacial-like >towards  prevention.  It is being criticized for that. ></thought> >Anyone else want to share their thoughts on this? >Wendy >hypo…@aol.com

You[Carol] do not believe in following doctor’s advice blindly without examining other options. This is a Good Thing. It’s a Good Thing in all areas of health care including decisions about drugs, especially when those drugs have been prescribed for "prevention" rather than for treatment of active disease. Wendy, The phrase in its context of the *use of drugs for prevention* appears above. Taking a phrase out of context leads to misunderstandings. I think most sensible people would agree that prevention is a Good Thing. Using drugs (which carry dangerous side effects and *all* drugs have dangerous side effects) in the name of prevention is a very different matter. Just as doing surgery (oopherectomy in women with healthy ovaries as a glaring example) is a very different matter. Even with the use of vaccines , one area where I think the use of dangerous substances to prevent disease is justified, I think drug companies need to refine these drugs further to make them ever safer. A drug intended to prevent disease in healthy people *must* be safe. We should not be willing to tolerate any risk in these drugs or if there is risk we need to know exactly what that risk is.  When doctors fall down on the job and prescribe  new, untested, and unknown drugs in the name of prevention they are using their patients as guinea pigs. I would like to see both criminal and civil charges filed against  doctors when one of their patients dies *because* they took a drug that was supposed to protect them from some disease in the future. These people have no future and they have none because the doctor took it away from them. He/she is guilty of murder, and the charge should be second degree murder as well as  malpractice. Once again I refer people to the book written by Timothy McCall a practicing physician in Boston who is well-respected among his physician colleagues. The Chapter on "is your doctor prescribing the right drugs?" alone is worth every penny you pay for the book. Even such things as exercise, quitting smoking, losing weight, carry risk. The risk is minimal for the most part but it does exist. People are injured when they exercise, people with undiagnosed heart disease die during exercise, people commit suicide because they become depressed after they quit smoking, they gain weight and increase their risk of obesity-caused disease, prolonged dieting can do permanent harm. These are risks most people are willing to take for the amount of benefit they expect to get. These things have *immediate* benefit. People   feel better, have more energy, think they look better and they’ve taken minimal risk for those benefits. The idea that they are prolonging their lives by these activities probably is the least inportant reason for  most of them. Terri (getting off her soapbox and offering it to the next one in line.)

Response:

Related Articles

• Margrove and others: Anixety and Omega 3s (EPA and DHA)
• New member: See story inside…
• Caffeine, Stress and Your Health: Is Caffeine Your Friend or Your Foe? 1/30/06
• reversing Heart Blockage
• Lupron & Heart Disease
• Natural healing
• Omega-3