“I have mummy truths to tell
Whereat the living mock,
Though not for sober ear,
For maybe all that hear
Should laugh and weep an hour upon the clock.”
-W.B. Yeats “All Souls’ Night”
I can actually say that I have been working on this post for a while now, hence the delay, so I hope that it provokes some discussion, or at least some thought. As you may have gleaned from the introductory quotation there's going to be a bit more philosophising today - sorry! I think that I have to take all of my deep thoughts out on you because all of the rest of my time, my head is being filled with information and this blog is the outflow of the concentrated dregs of my brain juices.
I mentioned in the introduction of my previous entry that I had come across a way of thinking that had jarred me, but I ran out of oomph to properly describe it. It's quite huge, and countering it is a large part of the reason that I keep this blog at all. This grating philosophy is Western Medicine's highfalutin' superiority complex. I'm trying to think of a snappier abbreviation, maybe: WMPD (Western Medicine's Philosophy of Dominance). One could really remove the “M” and still be accurate as I’ve noticed after my time in Ghana) but I want to be very careful not to let this turn into a full on rant...
I first met the WMPD in my English Lit. undergrad. I was something of an anomaly running from my 18th Century Women’s Literature course, in the “quaint” Cornett building, across the campus to the shiny new concrete engineering and computer-science building for my Pure Chemistry lecture. Being split across the campus, externally, and split across interests internally, the antagonism of Humanities versus Sciences was a psychomachia within me. My wonderfully, bumbling English professor would grumble - articulately, and accurately - about all of the university’s funding going into the sciences and then put his sandals back on his socked feet. And my biochemistry lab technician would justify (nasally, but also accurately) that research is where the university gets funding from, before going back to cleaning mashed mouse brains off of his pocket protector. It was not just a debate of resources that I was in the middle of, but rather a clash of ideologies. Oftentimes my science-minded colleagues simply could not see the point of Humanities, and the Arts in general. Poems aren’t going to save the world, but I think that they have more of a chance of doing so than technologies.
This would be the place to insert a long and bilious rant regarding the priorities of Western culture, but rather than falling down that bottomless pit, I will nimbly sidestep it. I do, however, wish to note that it is a testament to pre-postsecondary school (awkwardly meaning high school and before) that I first bumped into the WMPD in university. Indeed throughout my former schooling the arts and sciences were balanced (science fairs and musicals, lifecycles and life drawing) both in terms of resources and their perceived importance.
Now we meet the heart of the issue. In my brief time in medical school so far I have found that the Western Medical Philosophy of Dominance is more deeply rooted than I originally knew. Almost anything that is not based on hard science is considered fluffy. It is not the nomenclature that I take exception to, many lovely things are fluffy, but rather the pejorative tone that accompanies it. I am no longer strictly talking about the perceived dominance of Western Medicine over social sciences or liberal arts, but the WMPD in general. Indeed it exists within medicine itself: some of my colleagues would scoff at Alternative or Eastern medicine, though these are the only types of medicine that have been proven for millennia, and also patronized by the British Royal Family (and their longevity
is admirable). More distressingly, some of my fellow medical students dismiss psychological illnesses as less important or even something that can simply be overcome if one just “puts their mind to it.” Although psychological illnesses are sometimes less biologically visible, their effects on those who suffer from them can be profound, and are certainly very real. This attitude is not solely forwarded by unknowing students, I have had a lecturer solemnly report to us that there is no benefit (in terms of longevity) to thinking positively. Suffice to say I nearly fell of my chair. I am thrilled to report that the majority of my classmates are extremely worldly, open and equally conscious of the necessity to bring the human element back into medicine. I am commenting, rather, on overarching beliefs that have become implanted in the discipline and are still passed down the line to unwitting students.
The goal of Western Medicine is to prolong life whenever possible. The humanities, through culture and joie de vivre, teach us how to live life to the fullest. It is really a matter of lifespan versus quality of life. It seems obvious to me that if these two doctrines could meet - that would be the ideal. A balance between longevity and exuberance – I suppose “vitality” captures the two. This is the goal of my blog. To rebuild the bridge that has long since been burned down between Western Medicine and “The Fluffies.”
And it was not always this way; before the nineteen hundreds there was a great unity in the two as exhibited by such characters as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (a physician and author of “Sherlock Holmes”), Leonardo Da Vinci (anatomist and artist) or Dante Alghieri (a physician, political poop-disturber, and poet (of, among other works, “The Divine Comedy,” including “Inferno”). These and countless others have exhibited what is possible when both halves of our brain work in synchronicity. But that is a tale for another day.
I’d like to end in the rather hackneyed manner of inserting a few quotations by influential people that got across the point that I am trying to make many moons ago:
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
~Albert Einstein
“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Worship without sacrifice. Politics without principles.”
~Mahatma Ghandi
“The humanities and science are not in inherent conflict but have become separated in the twentieth century. Now their essential unity must be re-emphasized so that twentieth-century multiplicity may become twentieth-century unity.”
~Lewis Mumford
Thank you for reading and considering my views. Again, I hope some bits get you thinking, and if they do please feel encouraged to share your thoughts, either via e-mail or the comments section.
“I have mummy truths to tell
While much of society may see more economic value in the sciences, the humanities have had a tendency to latch on to this marginalized position with masochistic relish. How else does one romanticize oneself as a site of resistance against a dominant ideology?
ReplyDeleteMany of the science students that I've had the privilege of encountering have had an inclination towards dilettantism, in both senses of the word. We haven’t eschewed our hobbies in music and literature in favour of a love of medicine. It often boils down to simply this: it's much easier to be a doctor who reads philosophy, than it is to be a philosopher who reads about medicine.
Someone who pursues a career in the arts, likewise, is not free from such practical considerations. Like any good hegemonic system, the means of resistance against the dominant ideology is supported by the system itself. Would we encounter quite so many sociology professors bemoaning the "medicalization of everyday life" if the buzzword "medicine" wasn't such a lucrative line of research?
Or perhaps they just find it cathartic to browbeat us?
The issue raised about "alternative" medicine is less of a medical issue than it is a legal one (I'll dodge your postcolonial reading here, as I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue it). The public trust in medicine comes not only from the knowledge that doctors have in treating illness, but also in that they take legal responsibility for the patient's outcome (to see how deeply rooted this concept is, you need only look to Hippocrates' emphasis on prognosis). It is not enough to simply believe that something works - you're also faced with the burden of proof to "show" that it works. I would suspect that most doctors would have few qualms with individuals who explore unregulated forms of treatment, so long as you don't expect them to take legal responsibility for it.
With regards to the relationship between coping strategies and patient outcome, it should be noted that the study presented was a meta-study, which stated that out of the studies considered, those that showed a positive correlation between coping strategy and outcome were either small or methologically flawed. This provides us with no information about the benefits of thinking positively, and we can’t draw any conclusions on the effect of coping strategy on outcome from it. It's kind of like a game of telephone: the summary of the results becomes increasingly distorted with each retelling.
I must confess that I find myself in agreement with your stance regarding the perception of psychological problems (does this mean that medical students see a positive correlation between positive thinking and psychological outcome?) in that many people are afraid to confront anything that seems even vaguely emotional. You need only look to the resistance towards PPD as an example (granted, PPD's attempts to engage the students emotionally were often farcical at best). I suppose that this results from a tendency amongst medical students to intellectualize their emotional problems; but this has less to do with a distrust of the humanities, than it does with a distrust of our own humanity.
Aside: I can guess why you threw in the Yeats quote, but what’s the deal with the crazy painting?