Slashdot Mirror
Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP
An anonymous reader writes: An MP from the governing Conservative Party has said that using astrology could radically improve the performance of Britain's National Health Service and that its opponents are "racially prejudiced" and driven by "superstition, ignorance and prejudice." David Treddinick even claims he has "helped" fellow legislators through astrology.
They borrowed it from Republican Mitt Romney who referenced Republican Newt Gingrich.
Which makes sense when one considers the voodoo Republicans have with trickle down economics (witness the wonderful state Kansas is in) or that swallowing a small camera can somehow lead to being able to perform a gynecological exam.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm actually wondering what the result would be if they began implementing this.
From a pure biological point of view it's ofcourse pure bullshit.
But we can hardly deny that our current doctors just suck with the psychological side of feeling bad/illnesses. A lot of the power in "alternative medicine" is to support the people mentally, which as the placebo effect shows also helps quite a bit. It doesn't cure your cancer, but adding some spiritual side to the process that doesn't treat the people as patient #145563255 might actually give quite a positive result.
I think that no longer ignoring the psychological needs of people who are ill is one of the next big medical challenges. I've read people who fought cancer who said that the interaction with doctors & staff is also one of the hardest things. They seem to think you should be able to deal with all the shit that comes with it yourself and be fully informed and pay attention to every detail etc... while you're feeling like shit due to chemotherapy and are trying to resolve everything in your life before it's too late.
Now we seem to have 2 branches of "medicine". One that cures your body, but doesn't care much about your mind. And one that's full of "you should feel good and be happy" but doesn't know shit about your body (well, depending on the alternative medicine. there are some that do know some things, but still won't cure cancer).
When applied correctly homeopathy is GREAT for treating not-actually-existing issues plaguing patients. Essentially you are applying a placebo to a patient who is feeling "nervous" or something else rather hypochondriac and if the placebo producer did not violate production regulations you end up giving them a bit of sugar and like that you cured the non-existing with the not-healing.
Despite tongue-in-cheek I do mean this serious because there are people who DO suffer from non-existing issues, yes it is all in their head, and that's where homeopathy can help. So even homeopathy does have its uses.
The real question is whether it should be covered by a national healthcare system and I am inclined to saying absolutely not.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
I'm getting a feeling that most people here are going to say some incredibly anti-democratic things in here in a moment without even realising it.
Reality is, democratically elected parliament isn't supposed to be a bunch of elites but a cross-section of electorate. That means it needs to have a few superstitious people to be able to properly represent the population which also has such people in statistically significant amounts.
Seriously.
I did consult a homeopath in the 90ies and early 2000nds, mostly because my mother was all super-pushy about it and I wanted her to quit pestering me. He would question me on the phone for 40 to 60 minutes. His anamnesis was the best I ever had. I don't recall if I even opened the package that came a week or so later containing the "LM Potence" of some obscure Homeopathic substance, i.e. a water and alcohol mixture in a small important looking flask. But I do remember being way calmer and way more educated on my condition. I thought I had heart problems and he pin-pointed reflux after the extensive questionaire and talk on the phone.
I've never spoken to an doctor for that long and I'd be suprised if any doctor had time or could afford such a thing. I would like to have such a medical expert to talk to that does not push obscure 'treatment' on me, that would be optimal.
I treated my reflux with healing-earth, baking soda, meditation/relaxation excercise and a change in diet and told my MD who wanted to sell me a "heart and lung condition" diagnosed in the record time of 2.5 minutes to fuck off. Never had problems since.
The point is: Good Homeopaths are actually quite well medically educated and can be terrific "anameticists" (wording?), because their main job actually is to talk to the patient, find out what's bugging him and - ideally - do a solid diagnose. That they only prescribe sugar-pills is a minor nuiscance from that perspective.
If astrology would lead to a new occupation in which the main purpose is talking to the patient and find out what exactly the condition is, it could be a good thing. Wether the professional in question would be a homeopath, an astrologer, magician or whatnot wouldn't really matter. Only treatment then, of course, would need to be decided upon by a different party.
Modern medicine need a profession specifically for anamnesis. Until that happens, homeopaths and perhaps even astrologers will fill that gap. Poorly at time perhaps, but they'll fill it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Reality is, democratically elected parliament isn't supposed to be a bunch of elites but a cross-section of electorate. That means it needs to have a few superstitious people to be able to properly represent the population which also has such people in statistically significant amounts."
We let the people who can cook well be cooks, the people who drive well be drivers, etc. etc. Except politicians. Apparently it is perfectly possible to run a country without any qualifications (except perhaps the skill to convince other to vote for you). Or by averaging the opinion of milions of people. That is a terrible kind of democracy.
I would like politicians to pass various exams before they're allowed to "rule". (Logical reasoning, fallacies, decision making).
I would like anyone to be able to comment on whatever is up for vote (in a moderated system where any comment is allowed only once). So, a single individual could change the outcome, by having a strong argument or a better idea, benefitting everyone.
Why choose for a form of democracy that results in mediocrity, instead of excellence?
Bert