It is extremely difficult to define a healthy person due to the numerous factors involved in it. These complexities in the definition mean, that on the flip side, it becomes enormously hard to define an unhealthy person. Every individual is unique and the surrounding environment of that person impacts their health outcome. So, it clearly appears that no single approach regarding healthcare options will fit for all people.
However, in this modern digital world, it seems that every patient is entered as an algorithm or a protocol of a huge database rather than an individual with needs. There are, however, practitioners who disagree and believe in individual patient care. This article will look at several healthcare options, outlining what practitioners of these options believe and how they approach patient care.
Conventional medicine, also called allopathic medicine, tends to focus on the evaluation and remediation of disease states. In recent years, looking at preventive approaches also gained some attention.
This approach to medicine relies heavily on a reductionistic viewpoint where the doctor makes a list of all the complaints made by the patient. These complaints become part of the symptoms and behaviors which are not necessarily the underlying cause of the disorder. The treatment options mainly address these symptoms and may include medicines, invasive procedures, and surgery to name a few.
People’s bodies are mostly seen as a collection of organ systems viewed as distinct from one another. Practitioners, evaluation, and remediation thus become viewed in terms of whichever organ appears as the center of a problem.
Great advances emerged over the years in certain aspects of this one of the healthcare options. These advances came in emergency medicine, surgery, infectious diseases, and radiology in diagnosis in particular. However, the inclusion of preventative medicine, chronic illness conditions, and nutrition did not bring the same advances. Modern medicine is great at acutely saving lives, but not very successful in preventing chronic disease.
The singular focus of conventional medicine leads to dissatisfaction among professionals and patients as well. This dissatisfaction centers around dismal results coming from symptom suppression and the lack of focus on root causes of illness conditions.
The reductionistic approach focuses on one factor at a time. This limits its effectiveness. While it focuses also on achieving homeostasis in the body, the emphasis on returning balance to only the deviated factor limits effectiveness. No consideration is given to the interaction of this factor with other factors and what changing one might do to others. Harmful, system-wide effects may result from this focus on single factors in illness conditions.
In this example of healthcare options, assessment of a person’s complaints often centers around laboratory and test results. Very frequently, the conventional medicine practitioner spends only a few minutes actually talking to the patient. Whether this comes from the practitioner’s discomfort in listening or from the pressure to see as many patients as possible varies from clinic to clinic. History taking generally consists only of questions regarding the current complaint and possibly some questions regarding family medical history.
This leaves out much valuable information about lifestyle, psychological issues, potentially toxic substances the person may be at risk of encountering, and a multitude of other issues that may impact the current complaint. If, as in the case of Adrenal Fatigue Syndrome (AFS), the lab tests return with values in what is considered the current normal range, this practitioner may become stuck as far as a diagnosis.
Remediation efforts typically fall into one of three categories: preventive, noninvasive, or surgery.
The key to preventive approaches centers around the idea of keeping the disease away. This may include a simple wait-and-see approach in which the person gets regular, frequent checkups with no other intervention. Another aspect may include some medication interventions such as taking aspirin to forestall heart attacks in an at-risk person. A popular preventive measure includes lifestyle changes. Research continually suggests that a healthy lifestyle can fend off many common severe illness conditions.
Noninvasive interventions typically center around medications, either over the counter or prescription. Radiation, psychotherapy, and diagnostic imaging also fit the category of a noninvasive approach. A recurring drawback to medications involves their potential for significant side effects and interaction with each other. Medications affect the entire body and not just the illness condition itself. Sometimes the side effects of these medications become severe in themselves and requiring intervention. In other cases, the medications can harm healthy tissue or bring on an allergic reaction.
Invasive approaches like surgery might be the last resort. Even with many advancements, it remains a high-risk strategy. The post-surgical care is crucial as well. It consists of a significant period of time for recovery and healing. Many factors can intervene in surgical procedures, thus making it complicated and risky.
A model of medicine in which conventional medicine blends with other than conventional medical models define another of the healthcare options: Integrative medicine.
While this model of medicine still relies heavily on conventional medicine’s approach to assessment and remediation, integrative medicine’s toolbox comes with a larger number of techniques. This method emphasizes looking at the whole person and building a therapeutic relationship. The approach looks at all aspects of the person, physical, mental, spiritual, social, and even environmental sources of toxins. It focuses on personalized care to include all of the above factors. In integrative medicine, it is, therefore, crucial to understand and address the issues involved in AFS and in the dysfunction of any of the NeuroEndoMetabolic (NEM) circuits.
The definition from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health provides insight. This definition reads, “integrative medicine combines mainstream medical therapies and CAM therapies for which there is some high-quality scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness.”
Too frequently, the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of some other approaches does not meet the criterion of high-quality scientific evidence. Because of this, it may preclude some evidence from consideration in the scientific community.
A simple definition of holistic medicine as one of the five healthcare options appears simple. It comprises an approach that works to consider the whole body in medical care.
In this approach, quite an emphasis goes to the mind and spirit as to the body. The focus is on the inter-connectedness of these three bearings. If they can come into coherence, the absence of disease and corresponding improvement of health should follow.
While the concept appears very beneficial, it also is too broad and vague to really be useful. A good practitioner of any other medical approach should strive for holistic thinking to his or her assessment and remediation efforts. So, rather than staying a model for healthcare, the term holistic becomes a descriptor of the practitioner’s personal style.
One of the great benefits of holistic medicine is the attempt to find the underlying causes of the illness. As the patients put forward the symptoms, the practitioner addresses the underlying reasons that are related to AFS or a breakdown in one or more of the NEM circuits. And it doesn't matter whether the approach is a style issue or a genuine medical mode. The root causes of their symptoms delineate where and what type of intervention should focus.
The focus of remediation from this viewpoint consists of using conventional techniques such as medications to alleviate immediate symptoms. And it strives to find the underlying root causes of the symptoms. The remediation efforts from that point on can include changes in lifestyle, dealing with stress, looking at other health issues, and diet habits.
This model of healthcare relies on the concept of “the healing power of nature.” Its practitioners range along a wide spectrum of interventions.
Some stay strictly with natural approaches to interventions. These include detoxification, dietary changes, and lifestyle modifications. On the other end of the spectrum, those who follow this model utilize pharmaceutical, nutraceuticals, and botanicals to affect change. In addition, other practitioners fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
The goal of naturopathy or natural medicine remains to treat the whole person using natural means and to find the root causes of their illness conditions. Typically, the practitioner will spend a good bit of time with a patient. They explore family history, lifestyle, and stressors and will then order lab tests.
Education and prevention continue as broad major methods of intervention. Lifestyle changes to make as well as stress management techniques combined with other techniques in an effort to remediate problems.
Naturopathy appears more suited for people suffering from AFS due to the more intensive history workup. Therefore, this may prove effective in finding those root causes of symptoms that so often elude other professionals.
The functional medicine approach remains the most comprehensive model of medicine. It consists of understanding and dealing with the prevention, management, and root causes of medical conditions. It integrates conventional medical techniques and tools with non-conventional approaches. In addition, functional medicine works from a base of systems biology rather than the reductionistic base of other approaches.
It values the most current scientific knowledge combining the impact of genetics, lifestyle, and the environment. This forms the basis of the system's viewpoint in assessing and remediating patterns of dysfunction and imbalance. In other words, the root causes of illness conditions.
Suppression of symptoms with traditional medical approaches comes only as necessary to alleviate suffering while the search for root causes continues.
Functional medicine incorporates the best parts of the other healthcare options discussed in this article in dealing with patients’ health issues. It views people holistically. It blends in the natural facets of naturopathy. Likewise, it includes the open-minded approach of integrative medicine in its efforts to alleviate people’s health issues.
Overall, combining the integrative and functional medicine approach appears to be the most effective way of dealing with symptoms presented by those afflicted with AFS or dysfunction of any of the NEM circuits. Experts are able to search and pinpoint the invisible and often vague underlying root causes of their symptoms. This results in appropriate and comprehensive remediation efforts by the practitioners, in turn benefiting AFS sufferers.
The integrative functional medicine approach relies on the systems biology viewpoint. So, instead of reducing complex problems into smaller problems, the systems approach looks at the holistic and composite aspects of medical problems. Advances in both conventional and natural remedies are deployed scientifically to promote optimal outcomes.
It focuses on the dynamic and changing nature of biological networks. This viewpoint believes the properties of a single condition of human health depends on its relationship with other aspects of the biological network. The behavior, including health, of humans, comes from the active interactions of other biological condition of the person.
Five healthcare options have been discussed in this article. Each has strengths and weaknesses. It appears important to know the differences between these approaches in order to make an appropriate choice for your healthcare. The importance of making the best choice assumes a greater role in those who suffer from AFS.
So, among these options, functional medicine seems the best choice for most people. Even if you do not suffer from AFS, this approach remains the best option as far as the comprehensiveness of evaluation and effectiveness of remediation.
If you are having difficulty with choosing an appropriate type of healthcare practitioner, here are a couple of things you can do:
Read this article carefully to see the differences and similarities among the approaches.
Talk with others who have tried different approaches to get opinions.
If you would like to know more about different healthcare options, the team at Dr. Lam Coaching can help. We offer a free** no-obligation phone consultation at +1 (626) 571-1234 where we will privately discuss your symptoms and various options. You can also send us a question through our Ask The Doctor system by clicking here.
Healthcare options include conventional medicine, integrative medicine, holistic medicine, naturopathy, and functional medicine. Of these, functional medicine provides the most optimal approach to assessment and remediation of illness conditions. It combines aspects of the other four approaches and blends them into a very efficient and effective medical approach.
