All of us Vs Keratoconus

Members Login
Please log in to join the chat!
Post Info TOPIC: Progress?


Status: Offline
Posts: 397
Date: Sun Jul 10 8:34 PM, 2005

The following is an article I came across that addresses some of the 'brick-wall' mentality that became ever evident to me during my research into Mini A.r.k.
The all knowing but poorly researched replies to my questions caused me much frustration, and inadvertantly lead me to the Lombardi Clinic.
The science of A.r.k was deemed 'old', it was said that newer, more automated techniques where now paving the way.

But as I have learned there is a lot to say of genuine surgical skill... the human mind is the only machine that has the ability to make those split second 'organic' decisions... some decisions in surgery are instinctive, and it is this that cannot be programmed.

Physicians and Progress

The student of medicine, as well as the laity, tend to view today's practice of the art as if it had been always in place and in its present form. Few have an understanding of how medicine and the physician came to be and even fewer comprehend the processes which form the physician himself. It is especially important to appreciate our history at this time. Opposing forces are pulling the medical profession in opposite directions. On the one hand, today's physician is expected to be more responsive to the patient's needs — to become more holistic. At the same time, today's physician is threatened with examination for recertification of his skills — a process which emphasizes technical data not cultural balance. Medical schools of the day, despite their asking for “well rounded” applicants, judge suitability for matriculation by grades obtained in the sciences, not the arts. Many of these self-same schools, while professing an interest in “humanism”, offer no courses in art, history or philosophy.

Additionally, today's physician is increasingly cast as a tradesman — a mere purveyor of health care divested of any humanistic qualities. He is pressured to advertise, taxed as a commercial entrepreneur and is forced to submit the performance of his art to examining groups comprised completely of layman. The future physician is increasingly expected to concern himself with social justice, the environment and governmental regulation. Yet all of the curricula offered to deal with these subjects focus on the now — to the exclusion of any historical foundation. Many physicians thus find themselves in righteous opposition to what they believe are brand new incursions into their profession. They behave as though none of these confrontations has ever occurred before today whereas a reading of medical history will demonstrate that this is not the case.

Today we no longer remember what William Harvey had to fight against in 1615 when he conceived the principle of blood circulation. There was the great Galen, whose medical teachings had been accepted and unquestioned for 15 centuries. There was the fact that no connection between arteries and veins had ever been seen. There was the fact that the arterial and venous bloods do look different. To fight against these and other difficulties, Harvey took the quantitative method promulgated by Galileo. He concluded that the existence of circulation is a necessary condition for the function of the heart. All other difficulties were temporarily put aside. Thus Harvey won, illustrating at once the principle that a crucial argument can be settled by a detailed quantitative analysis. There was much more to be discovered after Harvey. For example, it was not clear how blood completes the circulation.

It has often been observed, by men ill–versed in the history of scientific developments, that great new ideas, when developed, might easily have been inferred from others accepted long before. For example, when Erasistratos has told us that the heart’s valves ensure a one–way course of the blood, and that all the blood of the body can be driven out by the opening of one artery by aid of the horror vacui, and Celsus has informed us that the heart is a muscular viscus, one might have inferred the circulation of the blood without waiting for Harvey. Even so one might imagine that Harvey, to complete his system, might have inferred the presence of definite vessels of communication between the arteries and the veins instead of an indefinite soakage through the “porosities of the tissues.” But he did not do so, nor did any one else for thirty years of keen discussion. The discovery of the capillaries was reserved for the work of Malpighi, who was trying to clear his views about the structure of the lungs.

However, there is an unfortunate tendency amongst modern man, especially in those possessing more than a modicum of education, to denigrate the accomplishments of the ancients — a most peculiar form of snobbery. This is never more apparent than in the field of medicine — despite repeated evidence showing that much of the art of the ancient physician was formulated on a sound basis. It is, nonetheless, not possible to discuss any aspect of medical technology without first examining the history of its development. There is much to be learned from a study of history if only one has the eyes to see — no pun intended.



Date: Thu Jul 14 5:45 AM, 2005

...these people sound like they are just helping themself to our misfortune...stuffing their pocket...and the people who support them are just as turning (sorry for the pun) a blind eye to it and keeping quite...

Its a "game" with a good friend said to me...I realised that the very first day i went on the net for my kc... I then started to meet others who came to the same conclusion...and even now they remind me of what they once told me...and how true we was from the start.

"It all comes out in the wash" sooner or we say over we have done more than any-one and our goals and objective are being met...because we actually believe in it!! of the main kc organisations who report to be looking after our interests has squanered our money!! is shocking but true, they just seem to have lost the plot and is just scaratching around now

...because they know that their core beliefs was/are wrong...and so they are redundant people, as their lifes has been, and is just simply "an empty shell" for chasing the money and not kc.

-- Edited by QuintriX at 03:11, 2005-10-15



Status: Offline
Posts: 397
Date: Thu Jul 14 9:48 PM, 2005

Its very easy for these kinds of posts to be regarded as nothing more than an unfounded swipe at the medical establishment. There are a great many doctors and researchers out there that work tirelessly toward making our world a better place. But there are also a great many who do not... there are instances of surgeons getting to where they are though nothing more than having the right connections for example.

Politics is rampant in medicine... drug companies dictate the direction of our medical futures... procedures that dont measure up to the financial profit factor fall by the wayside. How prevelant is this, I dont know... but if it happens once then it can happen a thousand times. My point is that a major shake up is well overdue... people must be held accountable for the information they circulate.

Its by no means all bad, but there is a 'process' at the core of medical evolution that is disfunctioning... and it is we that are instructed to wait, to follow the so called tried and true. We should not shy away from calling those out that need to answer the hard questions... we tend to treat them as our betters. This is a status that is earned not one to be taken for granted.


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to

Knowledge Works