Two articles – one written by an anthropology major (“Science and magic,” Feb. 23, 2007) and one by a biomedical engineering major (“Science and magic – not even close,” Feb. 26, 2007) – convey two completely different perspectives on medicine and healing.
The real heart of the issue is not whether modern medicine is, generally speaking, a more effective methodology for curing physical ailments, because it is. McCormick is right; modern medicine can cure cancer with an incredibly higher rate of success than folk remedies can. Empirically, chemotherapy reduces far more cancer than Christian Science prayer sessions or chicken heart soup. As every American knows, this is proven, undeniable fact. Nowhere in his article does Steinert-Threlkeld disagree with this.
There are several issues with McCormick’s article that I would like to address. The first is her implicit assumption that modern medicine and doctors are universally beneficial and well-intentioned. She wrote, “Looking at how many dieting trends have come and gone” will show that “the best method for positively changing health is always subject to reevaluation” and that this is a product of “empirical data.” I’m sorry, but was I on another planet when dieting trends became based on actual empirical data and scientific fact? Last time I heard, most diet pills and trends are nonsense disguised as medicine and intended to make money. Even real medicines often do not work, or have side effects almost as bad as the malady they treat. Some (ephedrine, Vioxx) do far more harm than good. As experience has proven, profit is often more important to medicine than patients.
The second is that science, in and of itself, is a Good Thing (notice the capitalization). Science has produced some amazing miracles, but it also produces horrors. Atomic bombs, global warming and mass extinctions all result from science, the scientific method and how modern society practices them. Perhaps we at Washington University need to be reminded that science is not a god. It is not well-intentioned, it is not beneficent, and it is not magical. It is a human process, identical in nature to all other human processes. It is imperfect, it is flawed, and it is only as good or evil as the humans who practice it. Just because a scientist states “I hypothesize . . .” before he mixes doesn’t mean he is doing other than random mixing; it means that he is recording and organizing his results. Witch doctors who repeat cures that worked are no less valid than doctors.
What McCormick really missed was that Steinert-Threlkeld was not trying to argue that some witch doctor brewing frog gut stew has just as high a chance of curing cancer as chemotherapy. Taken out of context, his quote about a “white coat mixing chemicals” seems to say just that. In fact, his point was that these two individuals each produce cures in the manner that their society holds to be most appropriate – although one process heals physical maladies more often, both are processes riddled with mystery, chance and incomplete understanding. Western medicine is just as reliant on cultural precedent, and yes, sometimes even blind faith, as a witch doctor.
“Heal” is a word with subjective meanings, and the American definition of physical health is not the only definition of well-being. What is more valuable? Living for a larger number of years? Being happier, whatever that means, during a shorter life? Going to heaven when you die? Living without pain? Even within our own culture, there are many different answers to these questions. Many Americans dread pain to the point of irrationality, but any good Marine can tell you that pain is just weakness leaving the body. Which one of these perspectives is more correct? Does any person have the right to judge another for answering differently?
That is what Steinert-Threlkeld meant when he wrote “that others believe in it suffices.” Contrary to McCormick’s assumption, physical health is not the only purpose of healing. The purpose of healing is to help people live a better life – if a Christian Science minister helps his patient have a better life than an MD can, then the minister has done a better job, despite the fact that the MD’s patient will likely live longer. Many, perhaps most, people consider a good life better than a long one, but a long life is often all that Western medicine has to offer, if it works and if people can afford it.
Ben is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].