Herbal Medicine?

Right... it has something to do with herbs…

One interesting definition has been given by Professor H. E. Bock: ‘Herbal medicine, either using whole plants or isolated plant principles, is called phytotherapy. It presents itself as a gift of nature, with a cosmic naturalness that makes it the obvious choice for a first-treatment approach. Generations have made use of it, gained experience, and cherished it, like a historical treasure, as a source for therapy.’

So, Herbal Medicine is the use of plants for healing. The Western type of Herbal Medicine differs from the Chinese and Ayurvedic ones in its method of diagnosis and treatments. The position of Herbal Medicine in our western world has changed from being one of the main sources of healthcare to being classified as an ‘alternative’ (I personally prefer the word ‘complementary’) therapy. Despite the place Herbal Medicine used to have, I'm not sure if i would always agree with the statement "...that makes it the obvious choice for a first-treatment approach." The change in the place of herbal medicine is believed to be mainly due to the development of pharmaceuticals (many of these are based on chemicals extracted from plants).

This brings me to my next point. In contrast to the reductionist approach of the pharmaceutical industry, identifying and artificially synthesising particular 'active' chemicals from plants, herbalists will use extracts from the active parts of plants such as the flowers, leaves, roots, fruits, seeds and bark. Herbalists believe that the use of the whole plant, which contains several different chemical constituents, is more effective and has fewer potential side-effects than using concentrated single active chemicals. The various constituents in a herbal preparation are said to work together 'synergistically' so that the effect of the whole herb is greater than that expected from the sum of its components.

I would like to think that the major difference between the approach of a herbalist and a medical doctor is that a herbalist will try to resolve the underlying cause of illness, considering the whole person, while it is said (M. Wood, 2004) that allopathic medicine often 'doesn't attempt to cure, but to maintain the organism through artificial means'. A statement i, in general, do agree with, although i do believe that it isn't always a bad thing, ones system sometimes does need a good whack of orthodox meds, no doubt about that, and there are things, i believe, you just can't solve with herbs (although probably not every herbalist will agree with me). Furthermore, there are herbalists around who only treat symptomatically, and there are doctors who try to find the root of a problem...

I used to think that the approach of a herbalists also differed in checking all the aspects of an individuals life, like diet, digestion, lifestyle, sleep, state of mind, etc. But since being on the medicine course I have come to realise that doctors are taught how to take a ‘full’ consultation. However, due to time constraints they, unfortunately, hardly ever have a chance to put it into practice. I still believe, however, that taking the time for the patient and asking everything will result in the treatment being more individualised. Even in Ancient Greece the 'word' was most important in medicine. The ‘word’, according to them, is a psychological remedy, addressing first of all the soul, through which it has important healing effects right into the physical sphere.

The treatment approach and therapeutic plans consider the ‘whole person’ instead of only looking at the symptoms and may involve dietary and lifestyle changes in addition to the use of herbal medicines. The herbal medicines may be prescribed as a tea, tincture, hydrosol, capsule or tablet for internal use, and creams, oils and ointments for external use. The approach is always aimed at encouraging patients to actively participate in achieving a return to health.

It is generally assumed by the public, and also by some medical practitioners, that plant drugs are harmless and therefore preferable. Put in such general terms this clearly is not true. The view is based on the assumption that all herbs are drugs with gentle action. Yet even gentle drugs can't always be said to have no side effects. Adding to this, there are also more 'powerful' herbs like atropa, which comes with some serious effects when the dose taken is too high. Furthermore, one has to remember that orthodox and herbal drugs might interact (although in some cases, this seems to be more theoretically-based than practice-based, but better safe than sorry)

Maybe one of the most pressing questions for me at this moment in time is: What is the place of herbal medicine in modern medicine? Both are based on Galenic theories after all... And both have a lot to offer to patients... So what i fail to understand is: Why don't we (orthodox and complementary medicine) start working together a bit more often to achieve the best results for healing? Just put the Sesame street-principle into practice...

No comments