Legalizing Health

The medical profession is old enough to have established protocols for just about everything. When someone wants to think outside of the box - say use alternative medicine - it doesn't just threaten a doctor's sense of control over the practice. It goes against the grain for another reason. The established protocol has been developed over literally hundreds of years, and in some cases, maybe a couple thousand. Another protocol isn't used because it hasn't been shown to be the best one.

It is sort of like a tree identification book my brother had as a kid. Starting at the beginning, it asks simple questions, like does the tree have compound leaves? If yes, go to page _; if no, go to page _. And so on. It makes it easy to identify the tree. Likewise, medicine has diagnosing steps. If a patient asks me what is wrong with them on step one, I'm going to tell them, we're doing THIS to find out. They complain that nobody is TELLING them anything. You can't read page one of a book, and expect to know the whole story.

The point I want to make here though, is that the medical profession and diagnosing is not quite as clear cut in many areas as tree identification. There are some things that are taken for granted as just being the way it is. Sometimes a better way comes up, but a doctor is taught to make sure trials and studies have been done to support the efficacy of the treatment. That doesn't mean a new way is wrong. Medicine is a little more like math than tree identification - there might be several ways to solve the same problem. BUT, some studies have already produced poor results for much of the alternative medicine world, or simply have not been done. But a doctor might have to read every periodical and every study result every day of her life to know new treatments.

Where, though, do you decide that protocol needs to change with the times as opposed to repeating old mistakes? For instance, in the birthing industry (and it IS an industry), what ever happened to Dr. Bradley's method of birth? I personally believe that it got lost in the realm of hyperlitigation. Its being lost has nothing to do with safe birthing practices, and everything to do with why people sue, perceived convenience promoted by drug industries, and doctors protecting themselves. You can sue the medical profession for just about anything and get away with it.

In the raw milk industry, there is an established idea by the government about who can raise milk, and who can sell milk. Contraversy is taking place because many people want to have the right to buy and drink raw milk. The USDA doesn't want people to drink raw milk, and cites disease as the main reason, but the jury isn't out on the real reason according to many people. Because there is 10 times the chance you can get sick from deli meat than you can from raw milk, and you are still aloud to buy deli meat. This is detailed in David Gumpert's blog, "The Complete Patient:"

">Link

While I agree that it would be nice if we could reduce disease, I disagree that we should be litigated into doing so. People should have the ability and the trained assistance to have babies naturally, and even at home, and to drink raw milk. It is a cliche, but both are safer than getting into your car each day. There is an imbalance of what is legal and what is not.

100 years ago, most rural families had their own milk cow and chickens. Prior to that, for 2000 years, most people drank raw milk and had babies at home. Now our government is making it so we are not allowed to, and I have to ask, can this be safe?