PLURALISM & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
I personally have erred more on the side of conventional medicine for most of my life, having experienced exactly the same scenario that Tim and Topsy find themselves in throughout my own childhood. My parents always had health insurance and my mother was diligent about taking my sister and I for regular check-ups. However, as an adult—especially one that does not currently have health insurance; I turned twenty-six last month and was booted off my parent’s plan—I find myself wary of the conventional medicine industry and the increasingly convoluted politics
Before undertaking the task of identifying and analyzing the rhetoric used by conventional and alternative medicine, I was unsure of where my own opinions lay.
that surround it. In fact, the reason why I ultimately choose to look into the rhetoric of medicine is because of one particular decision I made in relation to my own health. I have suffered since high school from debilitating migraines, but for some reason or another, never turned to prescribed pharmaceuticals. However, a few years ago, I finally had enough, and began to do extensive research about the disorder. I found that many migraine patterns can be explained by lifestyle factors, including a poor diet, irregular sleeping patterns, consistent dehydration, and stress. Therefore, instead of dosing myself with drugs, I changed my diet, started drinking more water, lost 35 pounds, and fixed my sleep schedule (I’m still working on the stress thing). In effect, I choose a more holistic, natural and full-body approach to addressing a problem with my health, and while I still get migraines every now and then, I honestly believe I choose the correct path for me personally and I feel grateful that there were other options besides drugs.
Therefore, after analyzing the rhetoric used by conventional and alternative medicine and reflecting on my own personal history, I have come to the conclusion that the pluralistic model of medicine might be a more beneficial way of thinking about health and a more effective system of healthcare in general.
...on pluralism
Unconventional. Freedom of choice. Patient autonomy. Cooperation. Coalition of allies. Honest agreement and disagreement. Open communication. Respect. Integrity. Promoting wellness. Tolerance. Clinically valuable treatment options. Open-mindedness. Active cooperation. Self-reflection. Attention. Care. Empathic. Truly symmetrical. Interdisciplinary dialogue.
I found numerous articles during my research from doctors and scholars that advocated CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and/or the integration model of medicine. These two approaches claim that conventional and alternative practices can be used in conjunction with each other, such as having surgery to remove a kidney stone in addition to receiving extensive education on nutritional changes to prevent future stones. However, as Kaptchuk and Miller argue, these models still have their faults since CAM and integration models “foster double standards for validating conventional and unconventional treatments” and “ignore epistemological beliefs and practices” between the two health systems (286). That is, the two approaches (conventional and alternative) are too dissimilar to each other to be fully accommodating.
Therefore, the pluralistic model is suggested as the best path for medicine to take. The pluralistic model is different from both CAM and the integration model since it only “calls for cooperation between the different medical systems” and not their full assimilation [emphasis added] (286). By acknowledging that both conventional and alternative medicine have “clinically valuable treatment options,” pluralism allows for a greater sense of patient autonomy (288). Ning also addresses pluralism, noting that “anthropologists have long [noticed]” a wide range of medical practices being a “ongoing reality in any society” (138). Furthermore, she argues that we should see all medical practices, whether conventional or alternative, as “operating in a continuum of overlapping and diverse constructions” of what it means to be healthy [author’s emphasis] (137). Furthermore, by using such words as “active cooperation,” “communication” and “empathic witnessing,” pluralism seems to offer itself as the more balanced method, one that can work to bridge the gap between science and spirit (Kaptchuk 289). The rhetoric here is not one of distancing or defining what medicine is or is not, but rather of embracing and being open-minded as to the variety of routes that we can take to reach the fullest sense of what it means to be healthy.
