"doctor" means teacher

[miriam_e]

I just looked online for some information for a friend who had a brain scan in an attempt to find an explanation for her terrible headaches. Apparently she has a lesion in her right basal ganglia. Now that area is a fairly large and complex part of the brain so it could have many possible effects. I was trying to learn more about it and found a site called Medcyclopedia. It had some tiny thumbnail images that looked like they might be of use, but unfortunately I would have to register in order to view the full-size images. I always find this compulsory narrowing of audience annoying, but annoyance turned to disgust when I found that in order to register I had to "prove" I was a professional by clicking the aortic lumen in the image presented, only to find that the page was so incompetently designed that it didn't work on any web browser other than Microsoft's awful and dangerous InternetExplorer, which fewer and fewer people use these days.

What is with medical groups that they are so loathe to disseminate information to the public at large? Don't they know that the word "doctor" originally meant "teacher"? Everywhere around the world there is a shortage of medical doctors. And the doctors themselves generally would like to be able to spend more time with their patients and less time on trivial things. They also bemoan the rise of nutty strains of "alternative" medicine, such as chiropracty or homeopathy, but they seem utterly opposed to disseminating the very knowledge which would drive back such superstitious beliefs.

Sometimes I think the medical profession is its own worst enemy.

Comments

Re: about chiropracty

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

From http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr189.php
"Sixteen papers were included in the research relating to the following condition: back pain, neck pain, primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea, infantile colic, asthma, allergy and cervicogenic dizziness.
“Collectively these data did not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any of these conditions, *except for back pain* where it is superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments,”

Back pain is the only condition of those mentioned that I'd consider using spinal manipulation for. And apparently it's the only one it's effective for. Did they explain what are "conventional treatments"? It says it's not better than but it doesn't say it's less effective.

From http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330
"For conditions other than back pain, there is no good evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation."

Well yah, I can't imagine why it would be effective for anything else.

Now the last article is rather concerning. Makes me glad that I've handled my stuff on my own.
I have let my dad pop my neck but he's very careful not to force it. It's been years since he's done that though, years and years.
It kinda reminds me of one yoga class I went to and the teacher got us into this position then said "turn your neck and look up" and I thought "really? that doesn't seem like a good idea" but I did it anyway and I couldn't turn my neck fully to the side and had big pain there for 3 days. That's what comes of trusting "authority" over one's own knowing. I made note of that. It's good to remember.

Re: about chiropracty

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Doing what feels right for our bodies so often turns out to actually be right. Of course we have to counterbalance that with what we've learned in recent decades about how often intuition can be completely wrong. But I don't really need to remind you of that. :) You strike me as having a very sensible outlook on taking care of your body.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

:) Thank you.
I figure intuition can only be improved by good information.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Well put.

[dorjejaguar.livejournal.com]

Thankee. :)