Ted Vollers wrote:
I find your question confusing in several ways. I thought that it was the accepted thing that patients belief in the doctor's ability to heal was basic to their being successful at the highest level. And I thought that this was also the accepted thing from the doctors as well. Everything from the placebo effect to the doctor's bedside manner was an established part of this as I understood it. If the doctor is hesitant and uncertain, a patient does not have the confidence in his ability to be an effective healer. And I understood that it was the accepted thing that there were doctors with all of the required credentials and then there were healers who perhaps lacked the credentials, but still were able to contribute to healing just because of this recognition. And in a sense, I though this was much like a ritual.
And I thought that doctors always recognized the nature of this relationship so what is there about loosing belief in the ritual? I don't therefore understand why the practitioner would 'wake up' to the concept that the ritual is just a ritual and this suddenly becomes a distraction. I thought that they always knew this. That the practitioner does not believe in the ritual but believes it helpful to the patient was always accepted by the practitioner was the way it was. Even if they knew that it was just a ritual, I thought that the doctor's accepted it as necessary. That shamans always included an element of showmanship in their practice was the way I always thought that it was.
I'm not surprised by your perspective.......that's why my interest is in connecting
particularly with traditionally trained practitioners who have had this transitional
experience themselves but still work with patients who have had no exposure to
this way of thinking.
But let me see if I clearly understand what you're thinking......
A lot of 22 year old kids graduating from university suddenly wake up one morning
and say: "I think it would really be cool to put myself through heck for another 4-8
years and go into huge debt learning a ritualistic method that kills as many people
as it helps so that I can spend the rest of my life pretending to patients that they
must take the risk of the side effects because this ritual is really important."
Does that sum up what you're thinking or did I misinterpret your second paragraph?
Put in that light, would you reconsider your second paragraph?
I'm really not trying to be a smart aleck......but I am a bit amazed that you
may think that most doctors can actually separate the ritual from the reality
and happily go on damaging people for the sake of the ritual.
Ted, if that were the case, everybody would have just yawned when they read
"The Biology of Belief." Instead, many traditional practitioners read the indisputable
evidence and still refuse to accept or believe it.
It's probably a safe bet to think that nearly all doctors recognize that presenting
in a confident manner to patients is helpful, but not that their primary activity
is a ritual instead of reality.
BTW, I'm not meaning to beat up on the western medical doctors at all. Standard
chiropractic thrusting type manipulation carries with it a certain risk also....albeit
much lower than drugs and surgery, risk nonetheless.
I personally applied those methods gladly for many years because I believed
that their efficacy was worth the risk because it was what was required in order
to benefit the patient. I laughed my backside off at friends who did "no-force"
techniques because my perception of those methods was that they provided
no physiologic benefit whatsoever.
It was only through observation of my patients over many years that I began
to conclude that there was far, far more to the interaction and began to allow my
ego to recognize that all the smarts that I learned and practiced was secondary
to who I was BEING with the patient.