An Unfortunate Case of Misplaced Trust in Natural Remedies

This story has been running in Australia for the last week. A woman with cancer refused treatment despite doctors telling her she had
an 80% chance of beating the disease through medical care. She placed her trust in a homeopath with no experience treating cancer,
and to make matters worse, apparantly her husband wanted to write a book on how his wife was going to cure herself of cancer.
So there may have been some pressure on her to continue with homeopathic treatment even when things were getting worse.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7441688/homeopath-put-dingle-on-to-psychic/


I myself have no issue with alternative treatments for emotional wellbeing, but when you stray into areas
that are life threatening, there is a duty of care to the patient that goes beyond just doing what they ask.

Hi Wes,

You touch on an area which is very concerning to me. Look at this link and you will see a similar case.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/promised-you-a-miracle/story-e6frebt3-1225698173107

The whole Alternative Medicine scene will, eventually, come under some regulation scheme. Hopefully this will extend to wannabe Psychics. No one should ever directly interfere with medical treatments. If they are concerned about what they pick up the most they should do is suggest getting an alternative opinion. Even those who reccomend "natural" remedies forget that some of them are lethal in certain medical complaints.

What on earth makes someone believe what they claim is the correct solution when we are dealing with the imprecise elements of our own human mind in relationship to "psychic" work and alternative medical opinions.

With stories like these is it any surprise that when we declare we are Spiritual Healers and Mediums people look at us as if we are loonies.

JIm

hmm another South Australian link
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/quacks-prey-on-dying/story-e6freo8c-1111114853041?from=mostpop

It only takes seconds to find many accross the world. Yes in conjunction and cooperation with conventional treatment alternative therapies, spiritual healing even proper psychic counselling can be of benefit. The question is unless we have some type of accreditation/training and regulation how can we safeguard people from the problems.

Indeed how can we prevent those opposed to "psychic/alternative", which is probably a significant number of people, from introducing tighter proscriptions which effectively make it impossible even for the genuine providers.

Jim

I suppose the old adage: by their fruits.....applies.
The 'Spiritual healer' is, more accurately, the 'channel for an energy' that may or may not assist in the easing of a condition.
The 'healer is a passive catalyst in whatever process takes place and can claim no credit in a satisfactory result, or be faulted in an unsatisfactory one (both terms being insufficient explanations).
The notion seems to stem from biblical tales of 'one touch and...'etc. There never was any evidence either way on this except theological hype, at a time when knowledge of infections, bacteria and so on was non-existant.
Folk would be well advised to consult a qualified doctor of medicine at all such times.

Very true Hiorta.

When I run the spiritual healing course which I call 'Awakening Healing Light' I repeatedly advise those doing it that they are 'spiritual healing practitioners' - that is they do not 'heal' any body. The healing energy available to them to pass on to another when they place themselves in the right frame of mind and with the right intent, is what may provide a benefit - to the degree that the receiver is able, willing and spiritually inclined to achieve.

The outcome is beyond the scope of the healing practitioner. Their job is to offer access to that healing force - no more. They cannot and must not claim any capacity to heal any one or anything.

I think its all about common sense and getting things in perspective. Harry Edwards, the spiritual healer, always said that there were no boundaries about what healing benefit could be achieved within the laws of nature but could give no guarantees. Also he never advised anyone to refuse conventional treatment as far as I am aware. A responsible complementary practitioner should abide by this practice. However let me play devils advocate for a moment.

While it is a dreadful tragedy that anyone should jeopardise their chance of recovery from any illness by refusing conventional treatment I think it should be remembered that in the case of cancer sometimes the side effects of treatment are as bad, in some cases possibly worse, than the symptoms of the disease.

If the conventional treatment does not work the patient risks hastening the onset of debilitating side effects without any benefits. Constant nausea, loss of hair, allergic rashes and other side effects of drugs, constant tiredness, loss of power in legs due to steroid use, early confinement to a wheel chair, interminable, exhausting waits in chemotherapy outpatients, sometimes approaching six hours, severe burns due to radiation treatment. All this is sapping the energy of the victim and devastating the quality of what life they have left.

When confronted with a dreadful disease like cancer the patient has to weigh up all the pros and cons involved in conventional treatment as opposed to no treatment or alternative therapy, and if a person decided to decline conventional treatment I would respect their decision. It would be a calculated risk for any person able to think straight.

Health authorities sometimes quote statistics about how certain treatments supposedly extend a victims life but I wonder if they take into account the quality of that extension of life. Its not much benefit if the patient was debilitated on a sick bed for much of that time.

Another factor that has to be taken into account when allopathic practitioners attack alternative treatment practitioners is that conventional medicine kills many thousands each year.

http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html

“According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes.”

“….about 106,000 are from prescription drugs”

What I am trying to say is that if this person was unlucky enough to be in the twenty percent of people conventional treatment could not help, by declining that treatment she probably ensured she had a longer period of a decent quality of life than had she gone down the conventional route with all the debilitating side effects.

Its all about making an informed choice, and had this patient decided to decline all treatment, conventional and alternative, I doubt it would have created a storm.

Hi Peter,

While in certain respects I sympathise with some of your remarks, I guess, having had cancer, and having to access this particular dilemna in a very real sense, while at the same time being a spiritual healing practitioner and trainer for many years, I am very aware that regardless of what the person with cancer may choose, or have the right to choose about how they wish deal with their condition, it is vitally important that spiritual healing practitioners or any other complementary practitioner, never suggests that their therapy is or should be an alternative to orthodox medical treatment.

An individual dealing with cancer, any kind of cancer, may not necessarily be in the right frame of mind, even in the right mental state to rationally assess their best options for treatment, and should not be assumed automatically capable of good judgement in that situation. Having cancer is a terrifying experience in many ways, and the prospect of possibly dying, even when you have a strong faith, or in our case, a strong knowledge of Spirit and of there being life after death, does not alter that.

While I agree that some medical treatments seem to be as bad, if not worse than the illness they are supposedly treating, for an alternative health practitioner to agree to continue to treat a person who has refused to have medical treatment leaves themselves open to attack, and in 99% of cases is probably not working in the best interests of their client.

There must be ethical standards that we adhere to. The the least of which must be to advise our clients that our healing therapy is complementary to orthodox medicine, not a replacement for it.

Hi Peter, from memory, as best as recall still functions, Harry Edwards in his classic work 'Spirit Healing' did point to what could be achieved in Spiritual Healing given the best of attending circumstances.

As has been said, a dreaded diagnosis of having a cancer is probably one of the worst of all possibilities, often with the mental impact on the patient equalling the physical effects of therapy.
Causes of cancer would seem to have increased since Harry's days, with so many folk now living in a microwave soup with as yet insufficient data to evaluate the effects and the tendency for having a chemical response to just about every medical problem.

Harry did postulate the preventative aspect of Spiritual Healing, though he did not dwell on it in that book.

From observations over a few years, it appears he was quite correct. A regular recipient of this great energy, whether as patient or practioner, does seem to have increased resistance to arthritis and possibly can benefit generally by immune system strengthening, although an unwise lifestyle is likely to negate, or reduce such. The benefit may well be environment specific as well as ailment specific.
The emphasis as ever is on cure rather than prevention, which leads to a very complex picture indeed - basic personal responsibiity for health and well-being is often diluted by cash-hungry organisations seeking to encourage an inappropriate lifestyle.

Hi, Lis and hiorta

I totally agree that a complimentary practitioner should never advise a patient to forgo conventional treatment, if for no other reason than to avoid litigation. Indeed the World Federation of Healer’s (now sadly defunct) in their training manual emphasized that point. That’s why its important that alternative practitioners belong to an accredited organisation which teaches best practice. Not only does it promote a better approach to counselling but it offers insurance for those who agree to this sensible and pragmatic approach.

Unfortunately complementary therapy will always attract people of questionable judgement and you can’t really avoid that as I think anyone can call themselves an alternative or complementary therapist. Additionally, some may have healing capabilities and advise their friends on an informal basis.

However, when you consider the number of reported deaths (let alone those unreported, plus serious side effects reported and unreported) due to conventional treatment I think its important that the matter is kept in perspective and not used as a stick to beat alternative treatments to death. The number of people suffering adverse effects or even death due to alternative treatment must be tiny compared to those who suffer due to conventional treatment.

Another thing to consider is, are the loudest voices criticising alternative/complementary therapy sponsored by a pharmaceutical industry that is increasingly being accused of persuading the public to pay for ever more expensive drugs of questionable effectiveness?

Recently NICE rejected an anti cancer drug because according to their research it on average increased a patients life by only six months. The cynic in me argues that financially its actually in the interests of the drug companies to produce drugs with incremental benefits rather than an outright cure, or even come up with a prevention. Prof. Jane Plant in her book, Your Life in Your Hands, states that research is actually structured in this way, where she also says that in China breast cancer was quite rare till they started adopting a western life style and diet in their cities. Breast cancer was in China labelled a rich woman’s disease.

Imagine if certain types of cancer like breast and prostate could be largely avoided just by diet alone as prof. Plant maintains? No drugs. No profits to be had. Just a diet devoid of all dairy products. What a blow for the drug companies and the dairy industry. Certainly food for thought.

Very interesting Peter, this is a very worthwhile discussion, I hope if I can find some free time, to join in properly.