“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” 

There is wisdom in this idea when applied to the context of Romeo and Juliet. However, naming and language are very powerful tools for shaping people’s minds and their thinking and understanding.

Consider “holistic” health for example. What atrocious spelling. Instead of using wholistic we find holistic is most widely used.

Whereas wholstic might suggest whole-istic, or wholeness, completeness or something which is all-encompassing, holistic suggests almost the opposite. To me, it looks more like hole-istic, which suggests emptiness, being incomplete or having something missing. Making this label for an understanding of or approach to health look more like a hole than a whole is a tragic irony. Holistic health is about wholeness!

The Western tradition is particularistic and reductionist and this is represented in Western scientific thinking. It is also deeply rooted in Western language. An example occurs almost every time someone attempts to explain holistic concepts when they begin with a list of parts, never quite able to explain the idea of the whole in very satisfying ways. Consider health for example, typically people say that the holistic approach combines the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects (or parts or components or dimensions etc) of a person. Others might add the intrapersonal and interpersonal or individual and social aspects. Notice the lists? See the parts of a person all stipulated? That reflects particularistic language and thinking.

Now here’s the real kicker. Particularism is virtually the opposite of holism. So quite clearly, it is a tough job to try to understand and teach holism when restricted to the language and ideas of particularism.

However, it is very important that we don’t give up. We must at least try our best. Why? Well, because people are actually whole beings, not collections of parts. No list will ever be comprehensive enough to capture the whole. As the definition of holism indicates, the whole is always more than the sum of the parts.

It is precisely because people are whole that holistic therapies, even if they seem strange to those unfamiliar with them, can be so effective. The holistic therapist (that is, any therapist of any type who recognises the wholeness of people and knows how to apply that knowledge effectively) may recognise that what presents as a physical illness is largely the result of an emotional problem, or that what presents as an apparent psychological problem is actually a physical (perhaps nutritional) problem. Equally, suitably skilled holistic practitioners may recognise that the key to solving a health problem means looking beyond simple physical and psychosocial viewpoints.

After all, the very suggestion that there is a strict divide between physical and mental is only an idea, one that simply reflects the strong Cartesian dualism in underlying Western philosophy. Whereas mental activity might be reducible to energy transactions, some may say, clearly the body is made of physical matter. Yet, more recently physicists claim that all the matter is ultimately just a collection of energy patterns and that, ultimately, absolutely everything is made of energy.

Nicola Siddons succinctly explains the physicist David Bohm’s way of seeing everything, including yourself, as different types of energy. This may still talk about body, mind and spirit since this type of language and thought is pervasive, but it does help by beginning to show ways in which even the Western-trained mind can conceive of an underlying oneness of what appears to be separateness and this is an important step in being able to grapple with the concept of wholeness.

As Nicola Siddons says at Holistic Healing Central, “So the idea of emotional release through massage or acupuncture is not particularly strange – and if you see the physical and emotional as just a spectrum of energy, it’s easy to see how physical disease may be linked to emotional and psychological problems.”

Nicola, who practices holistic healing, goes on to say: “Your body appears to create tension maps – almost like a physical hard drive of past events. You store mental and emotional trauma at a cellular level and if you don’t resolve those issues they often result in physical illness. Within holistic medicine you are trying to move to a better state of health by removing energy blocks in your system. These blockages create mental, emotional and physical symptoms.”

Well put. It seems we are in good hands with practitioners such as Nicola Siddons. We may have a long way to go in conveying the real concept of holistic health, hampered by restricted ways of thinking and inadequate language, but this only slows progress, it does not stop quality practitioners from getting on with healing.

The research explored what is behind the feeling of not being competent and involved use and detailed analysis of focussed psychological measurement scales. The published paper details: Cockram CA, Doros G, de Figueiredo JM: Diagnosis and Measurement of Subjective Incompetence: The Clinical Hallmark of Demoralization. Psychother Psychosom 2009;78:342-345 (DOI: 10.1159/000235737)

Technically, the article presents the development and application of a method to diagnose and measure subjective incompetence, the clinical hallmark of demoralization. The subjects (n = 112) were patients with cancer at a consultation clinic of a cancer center. They completed a questionnaire on general background information, the Brief Cope Scale, and a newly developed scale to measure subjective incompetence. The development and psychometric properties of this scale were studied. Data analysis included both univariate and bivariate statistical tests and an examination of the intercorrelations between the subjective incompetence scores and the scores on the Brief Cope Scale.

The scale for subjective incompetence was found to have adequate reliability and validity. The proposed scale will allow the investigators to determine if the distinction between depression and demoralization has practical implications and to what extent. Where it becomes particularly interesting holistically is that it will further clarify the role of demoralization in the etiology and pathogenesis of both physical illnesses and mental disorders.

The combined use of this scale with the existing criteria and scales for demoralization will highlight the role of subjective incompetence in converting what might have been a normal response to stress into an abnormal state requiring intervention.

Dr. Astin says 57 percent of the studies showed a positive impact on the patients, such as less pain or a faster than expected recovery time. “Statistically speaking, the figure of 57 percent is highly significant,” says Astin, who considers himself an “open-minded skeptic.” “This is far more than one would expect to see by chance alone.”

Of the 23 studies analyzed, 11 examined therapeutic touch, 5 studied the effectiveness of prayer, and seven tested a variety of other unconventional treatments. Dr. Astin says all of the studies included placebo controls and were chosen for the scientific quality of the research.

The highest number of positive results was found in the studies involving therapeutic touch, a practice founded on the belief that the human body has an energy field. The practitioner moves his or her hands over the patient’s body to modify the field and promote healing. Notwithstanding the name, this technique does not involve physical contact. Of the 11 studies involving therapeutic touch, seven showed at least one positive treatment effect.

Dr. Astin also reviewed studies that tested the power of intercessory prayer (prayer on another’s behalf). In one study of nearly 1,000 heart patients, those who were being prayed for without their knowledge suffered 10 percent fewer complications. That study was published last year in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Although Dr. Astin calls the evidence compelling, he says the results are not conclusive and should be interpreted with caution. He points out that nine of the studies showed no treatment effects, and in one study, the control group got better more quickly.

“On the other hand,” says Dr. Astin, “there is certainly no evidence that attempts to heal from a distance cause any harm.”

Source: University of Marland Medical Center

Unfortunately, most orthodox medical practice seems deficient in this key area. Even medical textbooks on the topic talk about the "doctor – patient" relationship. Notice that the doctor comes first in this dyad. Further, the profession’s cultural norms are evident in the language they prefer, like the socially strong term for themselves and the very passive term, ‘patient’ for those who seek their services (although they prefer the phrase, need their treatment).

Today I glanced at the Observer Magazine in The Guardian and noticed yet another example of the ineptitude of the orthodox medical profession. For example, a woman named Sue Jennings sent in this question.

I am 70 this year, have no arthritis or joint pain of any sort and am also free of heart disease, diabetes or any other limiting ailments, thank God. In order to try and keep it this way I used to take glucosamine, but this upset my gastrointestinal tract (glucosamine has also allegedly been proved to be ineffective). Therefore I moved on to cod-liver oil capsules, but the same thing happened to my genito-urinary tract. Can you suggest anything else that will not have the same result? I am also following a Pilates DVD.

The paper then provided answers to this question from three so-called experts. Their replies are rather more informative than most people would recognize. Let’s see how they score.

The first reply scores quite poorly in my evaluation. I’m sure that would really irritate its author, who seems rather pompous. Here is what he said.

Unless you have a significant vitamin deficiency (which usually presents itself medically), then there is no evidence that dosing yourself with vitamins and antioxidants on a daily basis delays the effects of ageing. Still, most safe supplements are inexpensive, so if you want to try them, feel free – talk to a registered dietitian about your best options. Many doctors believe that no more than 30 to 40 per cent of life longevity is solely attributable to genes, so an early detection of any medical problems, along with lifestyle changes (more exercise, less fat in the diet, no smoking, moderate drinking) are your best protections against illness.

Have regular checks at your GP for blood pressure and blood cholesterol (for heart attacks and stroke risk), a blood count (for anaemia) and a fasting blood glucose test (for diabetes). Pilates is a fun and perfectly reasonable way to keep yourself healthy.

This is from Cameron Swift, Emeritus Professor of Health Care of the Elderly, King’s College London School of Medicine. Perhaps Cameron spends too much time in university commitees and is too busy professing to find the time to keep learning. If he did, he would discover an abundance of evidence that supports the use of those supplements and might have adopted a less ignorant and arrogant posture than the assertion that "there is no evidence". As a medical professor however, he is likely to be so paradigmatically bound that he is now quite blind to evidence not consistent with his and his profession’s cherished (and self-serving) views of the world.

The predictable and somewhat patronising suggestion to run along regualrly to a GP is merely self-serving medical cultural artifact. The suggestion to consult a "registered dietitian" is a way of keeping control, since such dietitians are of very little value, having been trained very much within the limited "scientific" perspectives consistent with the medical model.

Notice Sue’s question. Does she need to be told to have more exercise etcettera, as the inept professor suggests? In a word, no. One could ask: more exercise than what, less fat than what? What does he know of her exercise and diet other than that what she follows has ensured her good health? Nothing at all to warrant his response. He has failed to listen to this individual, failed to connect and failed to adequately answer her explicit and implicit questions.

So perhaps a suitable medical specialist would do better you may think. Well, we have one to consider, so let’s see. The following reply is from Dr John Hunter, a consultant gastroenterologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge.

I see no reason why you need to take ‘preventative’ medications such as glucosamine and cod-liver oil, as you are in perfectly good health. It sounds very boring, I know, but the best way to protect yourself against arthritis, heart disease and diabetes is to follow a well-balanced diet with some meat and plenty of fish, lots of fruit and vegetables and plenty of chewy foods, such as wholemeal breads. I’d also recommend as much exercise as you feel comfortable doing. Your reaction isn’t necessarily an age issue. People from all age groups can get upset by certain foods, such as fats, milk and wheat. If you decide to continue taking supplements, you could try taking a pro-biotic (available in most supermarkets) to help settle your bowel, although pro-biotics are a lottery – you have to hope that the particular bacterium you’re missing in your gut is present in the pro-biotic.

Yes, this response is actually much better. The clinician seems to have paid far more attention to Sue’s details than the academic. In terms of the communication thus demonstrated I would rate this a definite passing standard. John demonstrates the problem one finds in many orthodox medical doctors in his well conditioned thinking. For example, he refers to glucosamine and cod-liver oil as "medications" when they are in fact nutritional supplements. They are foods, not drugs. He rightly identifies the usual culprits for gastrointestinal upset, as one would expect. His rather throw-away remarks about probiotics demonstrate his lack of knowledge in this area but probably make him seem very avant-garde to his colleagues. Overall though, quite a good response.

Now I have saved the best for last. The following response demonstrates good "listening". It connects with the details of Sue’s questions and is more empathic in dealing with her history. It provides reassurance regarding Sue’s supplement choices and suggests a rationale for her experiences. It also goes the extra mile by providing a recommendation tailored to Sue’s age and personal history. There is no evidence of either gross ignorance or arrogance. Take a look.

Several well-conducted studies have found glucosamine to be effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis (‘wear and tear’ arthritis). I have also found it in practice to be helpful in maintaining joint health, and think that your idea to try it was a good one. Very rarely do I find that it causes gastrointestinal symptoms.

Cod-liver oil is also usually well tolerated. You could try other brands of glucosamine and/or cod-liver oil, as it might be something in the formulations you have tried (rather than the active substances themselves) that you are sensitive to. However, your reaction might mean your gut is unduly sensitive. This is common in the elderly as our gut lining can degenerate. I can therefore recommend one remedy to regenerate your gut lining. This is L-glutamine (not to be confused with glucosamine). I suggest a dose of 1g, two or three times a day for two months.

The above response was from Dr John Briffa, a holistic doctor specialising in nutritional medicine. Although trained originally as an orthodox doctor, John was less than impressed and moved his practice in a more holistic direction. If only more would follow the lead there would be dramatically less disease and much more real health in society. Unfortunately, this represents more nightmare than dream to orthodox doctors.

It is, of course, unfair to evaluate interpersonal interactional quality on the basis of some written snippets from a newspaper’s magazine section. However, an intelligent deconstruction of the responses does indeed give some quite clear insights into critical foundations of such communication. Read them and judge for yourself.

1. Most people will say words to the effect that health is not being sick.
2. Very few people can talk about health without actually talking about disease.
3. The above applies equally to most so-called health professionals.

The concept of health as a truely positive state seems to be beyond most people’s grasp. Perhaps that’s because the experience of health, real health, is also beyond their grasp.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as "a state of complete mental, physical and social wellbeing and not merely the absense of disease or infirmity." See that? Yes, a positive state. The WHO even goes so far as to explicitly state that health isn’t simply not being sick.

Now the U.S. government program Healthy People 2010 is an eye opener. One might expect the Department of Health And Human Services to know what health is and to at least get the rhetoric right. They do fine to a point. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are aptly named. However, their National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) loses the plot.

The NCHS describes Healthy People 2010 as "a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda. Healthy People 2010 contains 467 objectives designed to serve as a road map for improving the health of all people in the United States during the first decade of the 21st century." In magnificent bureaucratic form it is said to have: "Two overarching goals–increase quality and years of healthy life, and eliminate health disparities–serve as a guide for developing objectives that will actually measure progress. The objectives are organized in 28 focus areas, each representing an important public health area."

Well these focus areas seem pretty important. Presumably, they must be where all the health action is to be found. If you think that then brace yourself for a disappointment. When the NCHS talks about health it too makes the error of confusing disease, pathology, morbidity and environmental threats to wellbeing with health. It’s like they have no clear idea at all about just what health, that wonderfully positive state, really is. Here are their focus areas.

Focus Areas at a Glance (28)
1. Access to Quality Health Services
2. Arthritis, Osteoporosis and Chronic Back Conditions
3. Cancer
4. Chronic Kidney Disease
5. Diabetes
6. Disability and Secondary Conditions
7. Educational and Community-Based Programs
8. Environmental Health
9. Family Planning
10. Food Safety
11. Health Communication
12. Heart Disease and Stroke
13. HIV
14. Immunizations and Infectious Diseases
15. Injury and Violence Prevention
16. Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
17. Medical Product Safety
18. Mental Health and Mental Disorders
19. Nutrition and Overweight
20. Occupational Safety and Health
21. Oral Health
22. Physical Activity and Fitness
23. Public Health Infrastructure
24. Respiratory Diseases
25. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
26. Substance Abuse
27. Tobacco Use
28. Vision and Hearing

From: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/hpdata2010/2010fa28.htm

It isn’t that the people at NCHS have lost the plot so much as have never really known the plot. This program follows on from earlier ones that have run for decades. Guess what, there have been no serious outbreaks of health anywhere. They are doing no more than the proverbial rearranging of deckchairs on the Titanic.

Without a very clear understanding of health, including all of its determinants, it is impossible to effectively define health targets. Without such clarity any hope of significantly progressing towards health goals is little more than a pipe dream.

The NCHS’s present focus is really on disease in several areas of its manifestation. But disease is not health. Even the absense of disease is not health. Locked within their disease paradigm, with its associated misplaced belief in and reliance upon so-called scientific medicine, the front for the pharmaceutical industry, they are doomed to failure.

This will please Big Pharma, keep many people employed in the health sector (really the misnamed disease sector) and generally allow for the status quo. Meanwhile, people will keep suffering and dying earlier than necessary, be killed by medical errors in the tens of thousands every year and more government initiatives will be dreamed up by bureaucrats.

If you are comfortable in that system then good luck to you. You’ll need some. If not, then do something for your health now. Take action before it is too late. Some people never wake up from that pipe dream.