Allopathic medical care is widely available and more likely to be covered by insurance, so why do I recommend *almost* always consulting with an alternative health practitioner? Does it make sense to go through the extra expense and effort of finding another provider when you could simply walk into the hospital or clinic that is available in just about every town of any size.
Though I agree that medical care has its place, it has some significant shortcomings that prevent it from providing the help that it should.
Drugs are the Default
If you've ever consulted a doctor for any health concern, you probably didn't leave without a prescription. They have a drug (or several) for every symptom, and they are eager to write you a prescription for one or more of them.
Pharmaceuticals are synthetic compounds that force your body into functioning a certain way. They do not address whatever is causing your health concern in the first place, so that problem remains. The drug will only cover up the symptoms. Mostly likely, the underlying problem will worsen until it affects another bodily system, causing new symptoms, which your doctor will then prescribe another drug for.
Furthermore, drugs come with side effects, and your doctor will happily prescribe further drugs to counteract the side effects of the first.
It's a never-ending cycle in which your actual issue is never addressed, only covered up, while you deal with worsening symptoms and side effects and are prescribed an increasing number of more powerful medications to manage it.
What You Should Get
The first task of any health care professional should be to figure out why you are experiencing the symptoms that brought you to them. It may not be easy since many issues can cause similar symptoms, but healing cannot happen without addressing the root cause. If your doctor gives you a prescription without addressing root cause and lifestyle changes, they are not working in your best interests.
Not Treating the Individual
I personally know someone who went to one of the big medical systems in the upper midwest and was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. The doctor he saw told him he should take methotrexate and referred him to a rheumatologist. The rheumatologist also recommended methotrexate.
Fortunately, he wasn't comfortable taking methotrexate and opted for another medication. He saw a functional doctor some time later. She did a simple cheek swab test that revealed an MTHFR mutation. One of the drugs cautioned with this genetic mutation is methotrexate.
Why couldn't the primary doctor or the rheumatologist be bothered to perform this simple cheek swab test? MTHFR is not rare. It's estimated that around half of the population has it. Shouldn't it be standard procedure to test for it to ensure the patient won't be harmed by the medication?
What Should Happen
Any doctor should take your individual body, genetics, history, and needs into account when prescribing any medication or procedure. Sure, it may mean additional testing, but that's far better than putting people on medications that will harm them (more than they would otherwise).
In this case, the doctor and rheumatologist both should have said, "I'd like to put you on methotrexate, but first, we need to test to see if you have an MTHFR gene mutation. It's a simple cheek swab test, and if that's clear, I can go ahead and write your prescription if that's the route you want to take."
Refusal to Accept Patient Choices
One of the most disturbing accounts I've heard was from a woman whose husband was undergoing cancer treatment, again in a major medical system in the upper midwest.
His oncologist reached the end of what they could do and told the man his only option was to go home and die. (I'm sure he said it with more compassion, but that's the gist of it.)
The man didn't accept that answer and looked into alternative treatments. He ended up traveling across the country and paying out of pocket for a treatment that still used chemo but had a way of targeting it better at the cancer cells.
This treatment was successful, but when the man returned home and contacted his oncologist for continued monitoring closer to home, the oncologist refused to see him because he'd had an "alternative treatment."
Apparently, the thought process of this doctor was, "If you don't follow my orders (even if those order are to die), I won't see you anymore."
How It Should be Handled
It is entirely your choice to receive alternative treatments. No medical doctor owns you. They don't have to agree or approve, but they need to at least accept that you make the choices regarding your own treatment.
The oncologist in question should have responded by saying, "I am so glad this other treatment saved your life! I'd love to learn more about how it works!" And he should follow that with either, "Let's set a schedule to monitor your progress and make sure the cancer doesn't return" or "It's not in my wheelhouse to monitor a patient after receiving the treatments you did, but I can recommend another doctor to help you."
When Allopathic Me
dical Care is Appropriate
dical Care is AppropriateI am very hard on the allopathic medical system, yes. I see it disregarding people’s individual needs and choices, endangering their lives, and never healing them, so I am pretty critical of it.
However, it has its place. It excels at emergency care! In other words, it's very good at keeping people alive.
If you have severed an artery, are bleeding internally, need an organ repaired or replaced, have a broken bone sticking through your skin, or other serious injury, that is the time to go to the nearest hospital.
This system can also serve as a temporary bridge while you work on lifestyle changes to bring a condition under control. For example, if you're found to have extremely high blood pressure and are at risk of a stroke, medication may keep you alive while you change the factors that led to the high blood pressure. As you make changes, your doctor can monitor the situation and adjust your medication accordingly. Just make sure to use a doctor willing to do that and not one that just tells you that you have to stay on the medication forever.
Another situation would be if you had a large tumor. It may be best to have it surgically removed before pursuing holistic or natural treatments instead of toxic chemotherapy and radiation.
Making the Best Choice for You
Ultimately, you must decide where to get health care, and it will most definitely vary based on your situation. However, I encourage you to explore alternative health options for most conditions because I sincerely believe you'll have a better outcome.
If your insurance not covering it is a consideration, it might be worth looking into the health share I've chosen for myself. It has plans for both any emergency care I would receive at a conventional hospital but also holistic care, including chiropractic, acupuncture, IV therapy, and more. It also reimburses me $50 each month for the natural oils and supplements I use to keep myself healthy. You can choose to have only the emergency plan, only the holistic plan, or both.
If you're interested, check it out here.
*The information presented here is for educational purposes only and is in no way intended to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease or condition. Consult your doctor (preferably a naturopath or functional medicine provider) if you have a serious medical condition or are taking any medications.
*This site may contain affiliate links, which means you pay the usual price, but a portion of it goes to me and supports my family and small business. I appreciate it and will only ever affiliate for products that I use and love.*
0 Comments