Science versus non-science healthcare

Dipankar Gupta

In Mexico, it is cynically said, there are two ways to solve a problem: one is a technical solution and the other a miraculous one.  The technical way is to pray to Mother Mary in Mexico’s Basilica of Guadalupe, who then descends from heaven and sorts things out for you. The miraculous route is when people come together, drop their egos and put their best scientific brains to work. But as this option is rarely exercised, it is considered “miraculous”.

There are clearly many in India who have chosen the “technical” route as outlined above. Substitute Mother Mary’s blessings for “Mother Cow’s” divinity and a “technical” solution is freely available in India as well. Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, for example, obviously thinks “technically”, at least in the field of health.

In her view, it was cow urine that cured her cancer, not chemotherapy or surgery. Yet, if while campaigning, Pragya Thakur’s car fell short of petrol, would she fall back on a litre of cow urine instead? Most certainly, not. Nor would she probably ever advocate Chandrayaan spacecraft coat their heat shields with cow dung.  Both are absurd suggestions and can only occur to someone in a parallel universe.

However, when Pragya Thakur claimed it was cow urine and not science-based surgery that saved her, why did many in this universe find it credible, not fantastic? This, even after it became public that a regular surgeon removed the malignant tumour in her. Interestingly, only in matters of medicine and health — not cars, planes or satellites — the choice between a technical solution and a miraculous solution, however defined, becomes active. Why should this be so?

Science works best in areas it has created. Satellites, bullet trains and big bombs are made by humans, people of science, which is why they can write unambiguous operating manuals which lose nothing in translation. There are no such standard manufacturer’s instructions when it comes to health. This is because organic life — human, animal, or plant — is not a product of science. 

The living world around us was not crafted by human brains and hands. Consequently, our knowledge of, and control over, such phenomena will always be incomplete and contentious. This is quite unlike our comprehension of a super jet or a nuclear device which are of our making. There are no two schools of thought on how to run a combustion engine. 

In medicine, on the contrary, the field is open ended. An allopathic doctor will look at microbes and cells while alternative medicine might advocate sensing auras or interpreting dreams. Accordingly, the former may hand out antibiotics and the latter cow urine and mud packs. As neither side has a cent per cent success rate, there is always room for doubt. 

Even aggressive pharmaceutical companies are quick to caution their customers that if symptoms persist they should see a doctor. Also, as each body is unique, one side can always wag a finger at the other. Second, precisely because the organic world, human body included, is not made in China, the US or even in India, many doctors are reluctant to be dogmatic about their craft.

This cautionary note is particularly relevant in the case of life-threatening and chronic ailments. In these instances there is no tell-all manual on any side but just a lot of tall grass with unknown species lurking in them. In many allopathic hospitals in the West there is a designated non-denominational prayer room. Doctors in such institutions will happily cut you up but they know that their knowledge is not certain. This is why it makes good sense that God should be at hand for a second opinion. Is there, then, no way to decide who to go to when sick? In the real world choices are, to a great extent, predetermined by experience, even though outcomes are not always certain. 

For example, if one were to go to a government health centre, the longest line would be for the allopathic doctor and not for the ayurvedic or unani practitioner. There are good reasons for this. It is popular knowledge that the success rate of allopathy is way higher than any other branches of medicine. For a majority of patients, the allopathic clinic is a one-stop shop. You take some antibiotics, and you are fully recovered. However, when one has something like cancer, the situation is not as straight forward. Patients may want to roll the logs over to see what lies underneath.

It is not unlikely then that as a backup, one chooses alternative medicine, from ayurveda to unani to naturopathy, for abundant safety and this makes a lot of sense. However, this option usually follows chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery when treating malignancies.

What remains steadfast is that patients go with experience, their own and those of others. You may put your internal organs in expert hands, but the stars will also count. Thus, while allopathy is nearly always the first port of call, it need not be the patient’s only port of call.

— The writer is a sociologist and former JNU professor