naturopathydigest.com -- Beyond a Second Opinion Into a Different Paradigm

buy microsoft office enterprise 2007

buy Microsoft Office 2003 Professional sp3buy autodesk autocad 2009

Beyond a Second Opinion Into a Different Paradigm

Part One - What Patients Need to Know

By Alex Vasquez, ND, DC, Editor, Naturopathy Digest
AVasquez@NaturopathyDigest.com

Surely by now, all patients, particularly those with "serious" health problems, have heard the advice to "get a second opinion." Theoretically, patients who do this will be assured of receiving at least two opinions from two different doctors on the "appropriate"¹ treatment for the disease.

However, in its commonly employed form, the advice to seek a second opinion falls desperately short of ensuring that patients will receive effective care, let alone the best care, for their health problems.
Generally, what is meant by "second opinion" is that the patient consults with a second allopathic doctor before the final treatment decision is made. Theoretically, this empowers the patient and ensures the best care. Theoretically, if the two doctors are in agreement, the assumption is made that the treatment is appropriate; if there is a discrepancy between the two doctors' treatments, the patient is "empowered" with the ability to decide which treatment he or she prefers. Let's look at this practice more closely and see if the lens of scrutiny validates - or ignites - this practice of "getting a second opinion." Let's use a clinical example with a stereotypical patient.
The Second Opinion: The Same Paradigm From Two Different Doctors
Let's say our patient, "Chris," has a serious condition that holds the potential to be either crippling or life-threatening; this might either be cancer or any of the systemic autoimmune diseases. Chris visits doctor #1 and is prescribed a combination of chemical drugs that are generally ineffective,² despite their monthly price tag that easily exceeds $350. Chris is informed that the cause of the disease is unknown, cure is unlikely, that lifelong medicalization will be necessary,³ that nutritional quackery should be avoided,⁴ that the combination of drugs increases the risk for adverse effects (which kill a total of 180,000 American patients per year⁵), and that no reasonable "alternatives" exist. Now that Chris has been painted into the proverbial corner, since no authentic options have been presented, the chart note will read that Chris gave "informed consent" to treatment with anticurative polypharmacy; that is, a combination of several drugs that provide no potential for cure. Meanwhile, however, submission to this paradigm has robbed both doctor and patient of the impetus to seek the underlying cause of the disease, and in this way the treatment is "anticurative" because it obstructs the drive to cure the disease, since doctor and patient are pacified into a feeling of exoneration from responsibility to take action.⁶
A well-intended friend advises Chris to seek a "second opinion" from another medical specialist. Unfortunately for Chris, this second doctor was educated at essentially the same school from the same book and the same non-professing professors⁷ - all of whom relied on drug company-sponsored infomercials called "medical research."⁸ Since the drug companies puppeteer the medical journals⁹ and the FDA that then "approves" the drugs,¹⁰ plenty of clout and endorsement can be found to "prove" that polypharmacy and/or surgery are indeed the "best options." Elementary scrutiny reveals, however, that all options and considerations beyond drugs and surgery have either been excluded from the conversation or included for the purpose of denigration.¹¹ Thus, Chris' so-called second opinion was really just a different version of the same opinion held by those instructed in the pharmacosurgical paradigm, which holds that differing doses and combinations of drugs with or without surgery are the only options worth considering. Although doctor #1 recommended a regimen of drugs A, B and C, and doctor #2 recommended a regimen of drugs A, D and Z, both doctors limited the range of considerations to drugs, and the eventual consideration of surgery. If the patient is "resistant to" one of the drugs, a different drug will be substituted. If the patient continues to "fail to respond," additional drugs and possibly surgery will be considered. The shell game of presenting options to patients such as Chris is the "illusion of choices," which is perpetually limited to drugs, surgery and other "choices" - radiation, electroconvulsant "therapy," chemotherapy and the like.
Exploding the Myth of the Second Opinion
Second opinions provide a means of "checks and balances" to increase the appropriateness of treatments, accountability among doctors and to shift the balance of power back toward the patient. However, as commonly implemented, the vast majority of second opinions never escape the pharmacosurgical paradigm. Beyond the simplicity of seeking a second opinion lies the consideration that an entirely different paradigm - one liberated from the influence of the "medical industrial complex"¹² - might actually be more safe, effective, and cost-effective.¹³ For most patients and conditions, that different paradigm is naturopathic medicine. We will continue to explore the benefits and authentic characteristics of naturopathic medicine in this column, particularly in part two of this article in the July issue.
References

Vasquez A. How the public is "educated" to rely on drugs: the role of formal education, news, television shows and direct-to-consumer advertising. Naturopathy Digest 2006 May.
"A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them." Connor S. "Glaxo Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work on Most Patients." Published by the Independent/UK. Click to view it online.
Vasquez A. Twilight of the idiopathic era and the dawn of new possibilities in health and health care. [Editorial] Naturopathy Digest 2006 March.
"Food and diet quackery is common and should be discouraged." Beers MH, Berkow R (eds). The Merck Manual, 17^th edition. Whitehouse Station; Merck Research Laboratories: 1999, page 419.
"Recent estimates suggest that each year more than 1 million patients are injured while in the hospital and approximately 180,000 die because of these injuries. Furthermore, drug-related morbidity and mortality are common and are estimated to cost more than $136 billion a year." Holland EG, Degruy FV. Drug-induced disorders. Am Fam Physician 1997;56:1781-8, 1791-2.
Vasquez A. Integrative Rheumatology: Concepts, Algorithms, and Therapeutics. The Art of Creating Wellness While Effectively Managing Acute and Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders. Volume One: Systemic Autoimmune Disorders. 2006 (Click to view it online).
DeAngelis CD. Professors not professing. JAMA 2004;292:1060-1.
Angell M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Random House; August 2004.
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry," wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004." Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005 May;2(5):e138. Epub May 17, 2005.
Harris G, Berenson A. FDA painkiller panel advisers linked to pharmaceutical firms: 10 members worked as paid consultants. San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, Feb. 25, 2005, page A-15 (Click to view it online) and "Last month, the FDA revealed its latest protective policy for drug companies in a statement that said people who believe they have been injured by drugs approved by the FDA should not be allowed to sue drug companies in state courts." Pringle E. "FDA Shields Drug Companies From Lawsuits" (Click to view it online) and "The existing Office of New Drugs is hampered by real and perceived conflicts of interest," Sen. Grassley charged. He said the FDA had gotten "too cozy with drug companies" to conduct proper oversight. Sharetto C. "FDA ‘Too Cozy with Drug Companies,' Senator Charges." March 12, 2005 (Click to view it online).
Wilk CA. Medicine, Monopolies, and Malice: How the Medical Establishment Tried to Destroy Chiropractic. Garden City Park: Avery, 1996; Getzendanner S. Permanent injunction order against AMA. JAMA, 1988 Jan 1;259(1):81-2; Carter JP. Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives. Norfolk: Hampton Roads Pub; 1993; Morley J, Rosner AL, Redwood D. A case study of misrepresentation of the scientific literature: recent reviews of chiropractic. J Altern Complement Med 2001 Feb;7(1):65-78; and Terrett AG. Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995 May;18(4):203-10.
"Despite lush advertisements from com-panies with obvious vested interests, and authoritative testimonials from biased investigators who presumably believe in their own work to the point of straining credulity and denying common sense … (translate: economic improvement, not biological superiority)." Stevens CW, Glatstein E. Beware the medical-industrial complex. Oncologist 1996;1(4):IV-V Click to view it online on July 4, 2004; see also van der Steen WJ, Ho VK. Drugs versus diets: disillusions with Dutch health care. Acta Biotheor 2001;49(2):125-40.
Orme-Johnson DW, Herron RE. An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures. Am J Manag Care 1997 Jan;3(1):135-44.

About the Author: Dr. Alex Vasquez graduated from Western States Chiropractic College in Portland, Ore., in 1996, and then enrolled in the naturopathic medicine program at Bastyr University. By the time he graduated from Bastyr in 1999, Dr. Vasquez had published 13 articles in magazines and peer-reviewed medical journals and was a recognized authority on disorders of iron metabolism. Dr. Vasquez was later appointed to teach rheumatology, orthopedics, and radiographic interpretation at Bastyr. For family reasons, Dr. Vasquez returned to his hometown of Houston in 2002 and started a new private practice of natural medicine.