Talk:Holistic health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's not turn this into an edit war. Whoever think there is a problem with my edit state here why!

No more edits on the article without corresponding talk page edits. Maprovonsha172 7 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't have the authority to state that edits need to be run through you first, but I'll play nice. Critics say holistic health is quackery in which frauds pray on the sick and dying. This statement is overtly inflammatory POV. Critics of Western medicine state that that, too, is "quackery in which frauds pray on the sick and dying". How about: "Holistic health practices are sometimes referred to by its critics as 'quackery'."? Edwardian 7 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

It isn't POV because it says "Critics say." To be quite honest "Critics say" is an understatement. The fact of the matter is "alternative health practices" are dangerous and it would be irresponsible to present it otherwise. We're not dealing with two divergent "alternative" means to the same end, we're dealing with modern science vs. antiquated metaphysics. Maprovonsha172 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

It isn't POV because it says "Critics say"; it's POV because it says "...in which frauds pray [SIC] on the sick and dying". Edwardian 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Either you misunderstood, you're making a sophistic joke, or you're resorting to sophistry. Of course I meant that in saying "Critics say" I'm taking the POV out of "...in which frauds pray on the sick and dying". In turn, you can put what you like under "Proponents say".

But I still question the validity of "holistic health", and I find it interesting that you failed to answer my criticisms of it. I'll remind you: The fact of the matter is "alternative health practices" are dangerous and it would be irresponsible to present it otherwise. We're not dealing with two divergent "alternative" means to the same end, we're dealing with modern science vs. antiquated metaphysics. Maprovonsha172 8 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Either you misunderstood, you're making a sophistic joke, or you're resorting to sophistry. [None of the three, actually.] Of course I meant that in saying "Critics say" I'm taking the POV out of "...in which frauds pray [SIC] on the sick and dying". [Simply adding "Critics say" or "Advocates say" in front of an opinion is not sufficient to remove the POV implicit in the statement.] In turn, you can put what you like under "Proponents say". [Thank you your permission.]

But I still question the validity of "holistic health", and I find it interesting that you failed to answer my criticisms of it. [I'm not here to debate your criticisms of "holistic health". I'm here because it should convey a NPOV.] I'll remind you: The fact of the matter is "alternative health practices" are dangerous and it would be irresponsible to present it otherwise. We're not dealing with two divergent "alternative" means to the same end, we're dealing with modern science vs. antiquated metaphysics. [I'll remind you: Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view.]

Here is the real danger and irresponsibility: Your comments smack of bias and subjectivity, therefore, they are unlikely to persuade anyone. If I can see that - and I'm a staunch critic of alternative therapies and beliefs! - then it's going to be readily apparent to a fence-sitter. Edwardian 8 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Hi, I made the edits just reversed and wanted to weigh in. I am an RN in the chemotherapy ward of a major LA hospital, and frankly between that and 3 kids do not have time for this (which is why I do not have a userID) but I frequently use Wikipedia and was surprised by the tone of the Holistic Health definition as I found it. I agree with Edwardian on his points, however my disagreement with the edits are along other lines: 1) The implication is holistic health is synonymous with alternative medicine. In fact, within the Western medical community it is often used to describe any wellness or treatment program that combines non-physical elements such as support groups and nutrition as well as elements not directly related to the immediate illness symptoms, such as exercise i.e. any program that addresses mental health and overall lifestyle in addition to pharmaceutical, surgery etc. 2) Alternative medicine is an umbrella term used to group many diverse practices, many of which have no metaphysical claims whatsoever, such as support groups, massage, nutritional supplements like vitamins, exercise programs and diet regimes. See the NCCAM site (which is as good a source as any) for their categories of alternative medicine. 3) Some of the forms of alternative medicine that I suspect you would consider quackery, such as acupuncture, are actually becoming quite well-respected within the medical community for certain purposes and are covered by insurance companies. For example in my ward we utilize acupuncture to reduce nausea in patients. Numerous studies have validated results for this purposes (hence the insurance coverage, which believe me they do not decide easily). You can argue it is the placebo effect, but not with the results, and in fact many treatments in Western medicine have no more evidence than this to support them (see the evidence-based medicine article for some of the issues related to proving and disproving treatments of any kind.

Basically I think the definition needs to 1) not equate holistic health only with alternative medicine 2) not equate alternative medicine only with metaphysical claims and 3) recognize that many studies have been done to validate the results of some forms of alternative medicine. I am not a fan of some of the more extreme forms of alternative medicine such as heavy herbal use or reiki, but that is generally not the use of the term.

Also, please note that a debate is also going on related to the alternative medicine entry, and the suggestion there is that criticisms and claims need to be included in the articles on specific treatments, with only a blanket statement made in the alternative medicine article itself, in order to account for the divergent treatments included under that term. GUEST USER - JUL 8

Hi, RN. I would like to mention that I am one of those who have been attempting to rework the criticism section in alternative medicine, and did not mean to give the impression that I am only against the tone of this particular article. As you have summarized above, I agree that there are a number of factual inaccuracies in this very short article that need to be changed. Edwardian 8 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

"not equate alternative medicine only with metaphysical claims and" Then what is alternative about it, then? As far as I know, metaphysical claims are the defining feature of any practice not based on evidence.

"Here is the real danger and irresponsibility: Your comments smack of bias and subjectivity, therefore, they are unlikely to persuade anyone." We're all subjective, if we weren't we wouldn't percieve at all because it is the subject that percieces. How, likewise, could anyone without bias persuade anyone of anything, as we normally persuade people towards our bias? My opinion in this instance happens to correspond to objective fact, so if we want objectivity in any way we should consult science and here's a scientific fact:

No one has been healed of anything by non-evidence based medicine though many have been hurt by it, both directly from alternative medicine practices and indirectly by avoiding medicine in favor of "alternative medicine."

Alternatives to medicine are dangerous, and it would be irresponsible for us to present it otherwise. We should say what proponents say and what critics say, but we shouldn't so narrow discourse as to only present the supporter's argument of the content of an article. Both sides must be presented in order to call it NPOV. In this case, it is between modern science and antiquated metaphysical beliefs. Maprovonsha172 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

This is RN, I agree that the term alternative medicine is complicated, since many practices commonly grouped under it have been accepted by conventional medicine and are therefore not alternative by that definition. Also, as I mentioned, an additional problem is equating holistic health only with alternative medicine - holistic simply means addressing the whole organism instead of only the direct cause of the symptom(s) being immediately addressed, and in that sense Western medicine is doing that more and more. And as I also stated, many alternative treatments are not metaphysical (see the website for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the U.S. Agency responsible for researching and monitoring these treatments for their categories, I do not know how to insert an external link here.) There is also evidence supporting some of these treatments, so your implication that alternative medicine is the opposite of evidence-based medicine is also not correct. You are trying to impose a philosophical rigidity on these terms that in usage does not exist.

Frankly, I do not see the point in engaging in all these debates (including the one on subjectivity) in this brief article - since these issues are already explored in both the evidence-based medicine and alternative medicine articles in depth, and in their talk pages, I would be for restoring this entry to some version of the two sentence definition that existed before your edits (minus the implication that holistic health is the opposite of Western medicine), and maintaining those links in the See Also list. I only added my sentences to redress what I felt was inaccurate in your edits. [RN]

If holistic only means adressing the whole body I don't see any difference than conventional, evidence-based medicine. But then if they were the same thing there wouldn't be two different terms. "Holistic", whether you're familiar with the usage I mean it in or not, is a New Age buzzword implying metaphysical claims. Acupuncture, for instance, is based in metaphysics. If it isn't based in evidence, it is based in metaphysics. I don't understand what else you think something can be based on. Maprovonsha172 9 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

I just added a sentence to the article I thought should be on and wouldn't be very inflammatory. However, nothing I wrote on the article before was POV, but I agree it isn't appropriate here. It would be better to put it on the alternative "medicine" article. I still find the first sentence problematic, however.

Holistic health is a philosophy which promotes wholeness over the reductionism and dualism of conventional Western medicine.

First of all, this is an extremely lax use of the word philosophy. That aside, it sets up "holistic health" against medicine despite the fact that towards the end of the article nutruition and other medically acceptable health practices are included as "holistic." The words "reductionism" and "dualism" are also matters of contention. Reductionism is a loaded word because it implies something is being hastily reduced to fewer component parts than actually exist, and what is the so-called "dualism of conventional Western medicine"? My mother works in a big hospital where tons of Arabs and Asians work, I talk to some of them often and in recent conversation they were appauled that people call what they do "Western medicine." There is only one geometry, and there is only one medicine. One Syrian cardiologist quipped that instead of calling it "alternative medicine" we should call it an "alternative to medicine." I'd have to agree, though I know it would be POV and thus unacceptable in an article here. Still we should present the facts, alongside whatever bullshit must be presented as people will believe in just about anything and want their beliefs outlined respectfully in an article. That's fine, but we should put what reputable experts have to say as well. Maprovonsha172 22:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

No one has answered for the first sentence in the days (weeks?) that I've posted my concerns about it here. I think the article can do without it and apparently no one objects. Maprovonsha172 16:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking back at the article I found most of it questionable. I took out the following:

Holistic health is a philosophy which promotes wholeness over the reductionism and dualism of conventional Western medicine. Its proponents argue against making an unnaturally acute distinction between soma and psyche, structure and function. Many holistic health systems are considered forms of alternative medicine and as such have limited or no scientific evidence to support their claims.

The first sentences has been disputed above. The second sentence also seemed dubious, however. A distinction between soma and psyche? It's unclear what this means. Psyche is a psychological term and soma is either a fictional drug (Brave New World)or a mythological drug (Hinduism), to the best of my knowledge. The third sentence was made redundant by a sentence I had previously added about the nature of certain alternatives to medicine and how they haven't been verified scientifically. Maprovonsha172 16:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be wise to discuss major changes here before making them. RN and I agreed that your changes were not warranted. With your changes, the article has no definition of "holistic health". It states what (you think) holistic health includes, but does not define what it is. I'm changing it back. Edwardian 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to argue do so. You changed it back but you avoid my reasons for changing it in the first place. You're effectively stacking the deck; you can't answer my arguments so you ignore them. If you can answer them, do so. It would be wise discuss major changes, so why aren't you? Maprovonsha172 17:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to argue do so. [I do not want to argue. I want an article that presents an accurate, NPOV – just like you do.] You changed it back but you avoid my reasons for changing it in the first place. [You voiced some concern about the terminology of the definition but did not actually state an alternative or the changes you planned to make prior to making them. In my opinion, all you managed to do was substitute one POV for another.] You're effectively stacking the deck; you can't answer my arguments so you ignore them. [I would caution you to watch your tone and read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you make similar comments about what you think are my motivations.] If you can answer them, do so. It would be wise discuss major changes, so why aren't you? [I did. I said that your changes lacked a definition for the subject and that they substituted one POV for another.]

Please suggest an introductory definition that you think might work better and we’ll discuss it. Edwardian 21:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

A better introductory definition may be:

Holistic Health essentially means a concern over the total health of the individual, though there is some dispute as to what that really means. Often, there are metaphysical implications present in holistic health systems not present in conventional medical health systems.

Perhaps the fact that there are metaphysical implications could be better worded into the article.

The article would then read thus:

Holistic Health essentially means a concern over the total health of the individual, though there is some dispute as to what that really means. Many holistic health systems are considered forms of alternative medicine and often have metaphysical implications which cannot be verified by science. However, certain trends within Western medicine can also be considered holistic, for example wellness programs focusing on whole-body health programs of nutrition, exercise and preventive care.

Maprovonsha172 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

-

Regarding the opening sentence, here is one definition that I like:

"[Holistic health is a] non-medical philosophy of well-being that considers the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of life as closely interconnected and balanced." [1]

It states what it is (i.e. a non-medical philosophy) and what it is considered to be by those using the term (i.e. referring to "total health" as you suggested). The term "idea" could be substituted in place of "philosophy", or "alternative medicine" could be substituted in place of "non-medical", if you prefer. As you picked up on earlier, I do think the current introductory sentence needs to be changed because it essentially states that Western medicine doesn't take into account the whole patient. And that's a false assertion in my opinion. It could be followed up by something like this:

"Advocates of Western medicine dispute the claims of alternative practitioners that suggest conventional medicine does not address the needs of the patient as a whole."

...or...

"Advocates of alternative practices often employ the use of the holistic health philosophy [or idea] to claim that Western medicine [or conventional medicine] does not address the needs of the patient as a whole. Supporters of conventional Western practices dispute that claim and point to certain trends within Western medicine that could also be described as "holistic", such as wellness programs focusing on whole-body health programs of nutrition, exercise and preventive care."

Regarding "metaphysical implications which cannot be verified by science", can you elaborate on what you mean? In my opinion, holistic health is not really a practice or even a system of practices, but rather an idea of how to practice. No doubt it is used mostly by practitioners of alternative therapies, but I think we need to be careful inserting statements voicing criticism that might be better suited in alternative medicine or the article about whatever specific therapy is mentioned. Edwardian 21:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

-

The definition is alright, but I still don't think we should use the word "Western" before the word medicine, because geography has nothing to do with it. At MCO, the hostpital where my mother works, there are tons of Asian and Arab doctors. They don't like what they do called "Western medicine."

As for metaphysical implications, as far as I know metaphysical implications are what set an "alternative" practice off from conventional practices. I know of no other reason why they wouldn't be included with evidence-based medicine, than if they aren't based on evidence. You even set up holistic health as a metaphysical matter when you say it treats the "physical, mental and spiritual aspects of life." Philosophers argue about the mind/body problem, and though many do think there is a mind few assert that there are any "spiritual" aspects to life in any literal sense.

I think you would do well to look these things up at the Skeptic's Dictionary. He attacks New Age thinking and all lofty claims of the supernatural. If you would like to do so, out of a desire to understand both sides if for no other reason, here's a link (specifically to the "alternative" medicine topical index): http://skepdic.com/tialtmed.html Maprovonsha172 00:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

-

1. Regarding "Western medicine", let's leave it out, then. I agree that the term is not entirely accurate anymore but it does have a contextual meaning when people use it.
2. Regarding "metaphysical implications", what are the specific issues about this you wanted to address?
3. Regarding http://skepdic.com/tialtmed.html, I have that site bookmarked and I refer to it often. This is their link to "holistic medicine", by the way: http://skepdic.com/holistic.html . I think that information could be used in this article. In my opinion, "holistic health" is the philosophy or idea on which the practice of "holistic medicine" is based.
4. Is the following OK for a starting point?

"Holistic health is a non-medical philosophy of well-being that considers the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of life as closely interconnected and balanced. [2] Advocates of alternative practices often employ the use of the holistic health philosophy to claim that conventional medicine does not address the needs of the patient as a whole. Supporters of conventional medical practices dispute that claim and point to certain trends within conventional medicine that could also be described as "holistic", such as wellness programs focusing on whole-body health programs of nutrition, exercise, and preventive care." Edwardian 04:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Though that would be an improvement, there are still some problem areas. You say holistic means mind, body and spirit; how, then, are nutrition, exercise and preventative care (all body) in any way holistic as you define it? Also, I don't know what word should be in its place, but the word “philosophy” here, denoting only a belief, seems a stretch. Maprovonsha172 15:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Philosophy" in this context would mean "a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory [3]", however, I did suggest an alternative earlier (i.e. "idea"). I did not add the comment regarding nutrition, exercise, and preventive care (note the spelling of "preventive"), so perhaps RN could comment if he/she is still following this discussion. Edwardian 04:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with your proposal, even with the word philosophy. It would sound stupid (and thus anti-POV) to put "idea" there and "philosophy" isn't all that problematic, so much passes for it these days.

Maprovonsha172 02:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the introduction as above. Let's work on expanding the article to address your other concerns. Edwardian 03:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No-touch healing

I am going to add in details on Holistic No-Touch Healing, since I am a practitioner of it, I believe I can put in some useful stuff.

---

As there are already at least two articles on "no-touch healing" (i.e. Healing touch and Therapeutic touch), I have removed the following information:

The Practice of No-Touch Healing has been of wide debate and discussion. Since I am a practitioner of the art, I will explain it as best as I can. The human body has a Bioelectric field, this is called the Aura. On the inside, the bioelectricity is flowing through, keeping everything in order, and keeps blood flowing. When the energy is stagnant or is not flowing correctly, this creates health problems. Since Holistic healing is based off of the philosophy of Body Mind and Spirit, emotions and thoughts also affect the energetic flow. Thusly, a full analytical study of the patients mental, and physical aspects must be conducted before any treatments can be made. When the full study is done, the practitioner has the patient lie down (this is what I do, this is not what everyone does, but it is one way of doing it). The practitioner creates a flow of energy concentrated at the hands. Once this is done, the hands are put within 2 inches of the body, or even touching. Usually the patient feels warm and comforted, or tingly. The bioelectric energy the practitioner is sending to the patient is now actually reacting with the energetic system of the patient. This is where it can get tricky. The practitioner now has to have good control of energy flow in order for this not to negatively affect the patients health. The practitioner must will the energy to go to the area of negativity and will it to heal the area, how this would scientifically work, is that since the mind affects the energetic system, it will affect how the energy is used. So when you will it to heal, the energy is replacing the negative energy, allowing the patients energy to work itself, while your energy is also helping it. This makes the pain go away, and heal the injury.

-Andrew Scott

-Edwardian 22:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I have not seen anything this detailed, so I guess I will put it in those damn articles that seem to have all of my info.

• Sounds good. Be sure to use references to cite claims. Edwardian 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

....sooooo....cite it from every medical doctrine in the world?

[edit] Merge?

Should this article be merged and redirected into Alternative medicine? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)