The definition of health in modern medicine is word by word translation of the Ayurvedic system.It says"Health is the complete physical,mental and social wellbeing,not merely the absence of desease" Why then that everytime we see an article anywhere the authors comment about modern medicine treating desease and not the person?
The answer is not hard to guess.
The origin of modern medicine is rooted in Ayurveda which was taken out of India and then they worked on the knowledge gained from there.And why not,knowledge should benefit the public,not any individual.
And hence developped the modern system of medicine which was standardised.New knowledge developped due to the continued reaserch carried out by the western scientists which they are doing even now.(to a certain extent scientists from other countries)
I have nothing against any system of medicine so long as it benefits mankind.Unfortunately research in alternate system of medicine is limited to say the least for whatever reason.Then how to decide which system to opt for?
In any ailment the primary concern has to be the proper diagnosis.Unfortunately for this investigations are must.Looking at the patient no physician can rightly diagnose unless it is a minor ailment which will be cured without any help from the physician.On the other hand if it happens to be anything serious, who is to diagnose?
Let us face the facts,right now we have this fecility only in modern medicine.And one has to go for it,whether he likes it or not.After the fact,
who is to interpret the results?Naturally a person qualified in the perticular system and after that has been settled comes the treatment part.
If one decides to go for any other form of treatment he should be certainly given a choice with clear explanation of the consequences should the choice of the patient is not suitable for the desease.But can the patient decide the future course of treatment?I think not.That is where
the primary care physician should intervene.(Regarding primary care physician in next installment.)
The answer is not hard to guess.
The origin of modern medicine is rooted in Ayurveda which was taken out of India and then they worked on the knowledge gained from there.And why not,knowledge should benefit the public,not any individual.
And hence developped the modern system of medicine which was standardised.New knowledge developped due to the continued reaserch carried out by the western scientists which they are doing even now.(to a certain extent scientists from other countries)
I have nothing against any system of medicine so long as it benefits mankind.Unfortunately research in alternate system of medicine is limited to say the least for whatever reason.Then how to decide which system to opt for?
In any ailment the primary concern has to be the proper diagnosis.Unfortunately for this investigations are must.Looking at the patient no physician can rightly diagnose unless it is a minor ailment which will be cured without any help from the physician.On the other hand if it happens to be anything serious, who is to diagnose?
Let us face the facts,right now we have this fecility only in modern medicine.And one has to go for it,whether he likes it or not.After the fact,
who is to interpret the results?Naturally a person qualified in the perticular system and after that has been settled comes the treatment part.
If one decides to go for any other form of treatment he should be certainly given a choice with clear explanation of the consequences should the choice of the patient is not suitable for the desease.But can the patient decide the future course of treatment?I think not.That is where
the primary care physician should intervene.(Regarding primary care physician in next installment.)
No comments:
Post a Comment