11.2.2 The barest NECESSITY of healing
|
There is nothing more fearful
than the fear itse
Бэкон
|
и
Now (1989) our state on behalf of its ministries – from the Public Health protection (MH) up to Internal Affairs (MIA) – not only does nothing to support healing, but actively interferes its practice. In the USSR healing activity can be officially qualified as "illegal salveing" and to be prosecuted as a crime. A healer is also threatened with a legal stain of mentally defective person (schizophrenic). Such a situation turns of a loss of rich practical experience of the Soviet healers which remains a legend for public opinion (for a medical science - especially), turns of a lag of the Soviet science (and its practice) both absolutely (i.e. concerning its own potential abilities), and behind a foreign science which investigates healing and used it in many organizations, some of those specialize just in healing.
Refusal of healing, its prohibition (if even it would be possible) would be an inhuman step, and in a much greater measure for a patient, than for a healer.
We'll not point out here that there are cases when a healer copes with diseases which the official medicine considers as incurable. Proofs of this thesis would withdraw us aside from the considering question. We'll limit ourselves with more obvious moments.
In the moral plan healing is salutary for a healer himself, it is an outlet, a channel for disclosing, realizations and developments of his creative potential. But it is much more precious for his patient. For him the possibility of healer's help can be more important than a direct, concrete result of such help. While I know, that if necessary I can call to you, it's easier to live for me - it is a typical (and sometimes - literal) representation of patient's attitude to a healer. And it is invaluable. But even if to ignore it, even then it would be impossible to recognize refusal of healing as reasonable.
Healing is profitably (economically) to both a separate patient and a state, though for some people the reverse of this benefit can seem more important: At all uncalled blessings the idea easily is born, that the benefactor pursues his egoistical aims (Albert Moll [ 84, стр. 65]). Not only suspicion can work so: People not only forget blessings, but even are inclined to hate their benefactors. Necessity to thank for goods seems to them slavery to which they do not wish to obey (La Rochefoucauld [ 64, pp. 5-6]). And this tendency is so strong that to harm people is mostly not so dangerous, than to do them too much goods [ibidem, p. 46].
Using of healing promises economy due to
• refusal in many cases from surgical intervention (in various areas of surgery);
• reductions of patient's hospital period;
at that a patient receives that what he cannot buy (that has no monetary equivalent), as applied to (for an example) surgery:
•• relief of an outlet from narcosis
•• relief of postoperational pains
•• decrease of postoperational complications probability etc
• reductions of incapacity for work duration;
• reductions of expenditure for medicines;
• refusal in many cases from diagnostic procedures - often expensive, labourous for medical personnel and painful for a patient,
and moreover
• due to increase of labour productivity at improvement of health state, in particular – after refusal (with help of healing) from drugs, in particular - from alcohol and tobacco, and
• due to direct economy at refusal of them.
и
Недаром ВОЗ рекомендует своим государствам-участникам: Национальная политика в области народной медицины должна предусматривать юридическое признание народной медицины [ 90, стр. 42]; Не следует пренебрегать оккультными аспектами народной медицины [там же, стр. 35]. К сожалению сама ВОЗ не следует этим своим рекомендациям.
Наиболее целесообразен, однако, наиболее соответствует интересам пациента синтез целительства и САМ (современной академической медицины). Если даже пациенту не приходится выбирать между врачом и целителем, метаться от одного к другому, если они лечат его одновременно (но порознь), их усилия только лишь складываются – в лучшем и маловероятном случае.
Более вероятен случай, когда врач, мало что зная о целительстве, отнесётся к работе целителя с недоверием, с уверенностью в её бесполезности, в её неудачном исходе (такая же изначальная позиция возможна и со стороны пациента). Кто победит в этом безмолвном споре – зависит от множества факторов. Но если победит врач – это будет пиррова победа, победа без победителя, а потерпевшим поражение будет пациент. И хотя зафиксировать врачебную ошибку в таких случаях невозможно, всё-таки можно говорить о ятрогении, точнее – о скрытой ятрогении.
Кстати: ятрогения же, а точнее – антиплацебо, усматривается в том, как регулярно (месяц за месяцем, год за годом!) наше центральное/общероссийскон радио даёт – на массы! – прогнозы о предстоящих ухудшениях здоровья (в "неблагоприятные периоды") со ссылками на некоего профессора Хаснулина (найти, кто он, автору не удалось).
Если же пациент попадает к представителю единой, интегративной медицины, т.е. к врачу, который одновременно является целителем, в лице которого оба медицинских направления творчески синтезированы, – его шансы на благоприятный исход возрастают качественно, резким скачком.
и
