...on conventional medicine:
The dominant health care system in the Western world operates on the basis that it is a scientifically sound, “evidence-based” medical practice that operates within the “accepted rules” of science (Fontanarosa 1618). As a historical tradition, the “professional science medicine” industry can be seen as a “product of Victorian legislation and science,” a time period that saw important “technical inventions and discoveries… such as immunization… [and] improvements in survival rates from surgery,” which gave support to the “scientific authority” of medicine (Turner xv). Over the past century, this authority gave rise to the accepted practice of seeking
CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE
Scientifically proven. Evidence-based. Solid data. Belief in science. Rigorous standards. Objective truth. Knowledge. Reliable. Sound reason. Honest effort to solve problems.
out a doctor’s advice when dealing with something as simple as a sore throat and dutifully following their orders. By positioning the foundation of conventional medicine on scientific standards, the practitioners and proponents of conventional medicine hold themselves and their practices to objective, proven and scientifically-backed truths. Furthermore, by suggesting that real science, and thus scientifically-based medicine, holds itself to “honest effort[s] to solve problems,” conventional medicine positions itself as using knowledge, reason and logic in order to heal patients, cure diseases and rid the world of suffering (Mornstein 43).
It may be interesting to note that in my research dealing with the rhetoric of conventional medicine, not much text space deals with defining or defending conventional medicine itself. Instead, more time and effort is spent on defining and criticizing alternative medicine in opposition to conventional medicine. This in effect immediately sets up the binary opposition that is so crucial to the arguments between conventional and alternative medicine. As such, much of the rhetoric of conventional medicine relies on our expectations of how the binary opposition works. For example, if conventional medicine describes alternative medicine as the “uncritical acceptance of untested and unproven… medicine therapies… [that have] no benefit… or that case harm,” then conventional medicine situates itself as critical, tested, proven, beneficial, and safe (Fontanarosa 1619). Few objections can be raised reasonably to criticize this emphasis on rationalism and adherence to scientific truths against what might be harmful practices, and so it is often difficult to fully criticize conventional medicine’s aims and objectives, which perhaps have led to it being the dominant health system in contemporary times.
Pseudoscience. Major deficiencies. Inadequate. Unacceptable. Deeply troubling. Anecdotal information. Misperceptions. Preconceived or unfounded notions. No benefit. Harm. Distortion of science. Fatal. Magic words. Inconsistent. Naïve conceptions. Incorrect. Insufficient. Dangerous. Blind faith. Mimicking sciences. Lies. Nightmare. Medical deviants. Quackery. Bogus practices. Supernatural. Romantic interpretations. Unproven. Pseudoscientific babbling.
... on alternative medicine:
In response to the limited text dealing with defining and defending conventional medicine, it appears that more effort is instead given to criticizing, denouncing and objecting to alternative medical practices. As such, a highly-charged and accusatory rhetoric is easy to notice
when conventional medicine discusses alternative medicine. For example, in “Alternative Medicine Meets Science,” Drs. Fontanarosa and Lundberg immediately establish that what is referred to as alternative medicine as a semantic misunderstanding, noting that what exists as medicine is only the “scientifically proven, evidence-based” tradition that is “supported by solid data” (1618). Anything that deviants from this method is deemed “unproven” since it lacks true scientific evidence, and thus cannot be called science or medicine to begin with. By establishing alternative practices as “non-scientific,” opponents of alternative medicine link the practices with other so-called pseudoscientific endeavors such as UFOlogy and psychic phenomena which rely on “elements of blind faith” instead of facts (Mornstein 43). Therefore, defining alternative medicine as pseudoscience generates a perception of hocus-pocus and superstition, making alternative practices seem like smoke and mirrors against conventional medicine’s truth and certainty. They further criticize alterative medical practices as “inconsistent” and going against “sound reason” (41). Since alternative medicine does not rely on scientific fact, practices such as acupuncture and homeopathy cannot “be subjected to the standard scientific method,” and thus can only be evaluated based on “anecdotes, beliefs, theories, testimonials, and opinions” (Fontanarosa 1618). Again, the binary opposition comes into play as conventional medicine positions itself as the authority and speaker of truth and science against fraud and lies.
One more crucial argument that conventional medicine uses against alternative medicine is the concept of a doomsday scenario which employs a highly provocative and often aggressive rhetoric. Conventional medicine often describes alternative practices as “fatal for people without education in sciences” and “dangerous,” suggesting that those who fall prey to alternative medicine’s empty promises will be left in worse shape than before, or possibly dead (Mornstein 41, 43). In this manner, conventional medicine advocates fail to address that even conventional medicine can turn out to be fatal and dangerous, especially when concerning invasive surgical techniques and the risk of complications and infections. Furthermore, they believe that those who practice and support alternative practices, including doctors and others with “scientific erudition,” will become unable to “recognize or combat lies mimicking sciences” and thus be unable to pass the correct information on to their patients (43). This will result in innocent patients seeking true medical help finding themselves involved with practices that only seem advantageous because a “doctor” told them so. This process will then ostensibly lead to a breakdown in the traditional fabric of our reason-based society, culminating in “homeopaths or shamans [as] members of surgical teams” (43). While this scenario seems especially ridiculous and highly unlikely, it does illustrate the frequent and hostile imagery that conventional medicine uses in order to criticize and reject alternative practices.
