Saturday, January 12, 2008

James Alcock speaks at CFI:Ontario

Last night, January 11, 2008, psychology professor James Alcock presented a talk entitled "The Appeal of Alternative Medicine at CFI:Ontario.

I don’t see much threat in alternative medicine since, to me; the believers are the only ones who are getting hurt. People should be free to waste their lives and money on whatever they want and I have enough things happening in my life to care about yours. Since I’ve also taken more than my fair share of science lectures in university, I assumed this would be another boring talk about a boring subject.

For the most part, my predictions were accurate, although the talk was still entertaining and I sensed that the almost full house found the subject interesting.

Throughout the longer-than-necessary introductions about upcoming events at CFI (anyone can look them up on the website), James Alcock’s numerous credentials and experiences were laid out ad nauseum to a point where I sometimes think these talks are more about promoting the speakers than promoting the subject.

Alcock introduced his talk with a movie he took in China about a Qi Gong master who looks more like the guy at the night club on Special K than an ancient healer. The powerpoint slides that contained the bulk of the lecture were a little lame (Don’t ever attach sound to your presentation!) although he routinely included applicable cartoons that lightened an otherwise dull performance.

Alcock presented a good history of the medical profession, noting that we really haven’t changed much over the last thousand years. He noted how magic developed in ancient times to fill the gaps of our knowledge and how these eventually evolved into religion.

I dozed off a little throughout the history bits but from what I understood, the Greeks were the first to use evidence based techniques to solve problems but the Romans didn’t continue these techniques so when the Christians took over, Europe had lost most of its problem solving skills. Luckily, the (comparatively) progressive Islamic nations held onto the old Greek textbooks while Europe buried itself under Christianity for a few hundred years. Alcock did like to throw in some useless but interesting trivia every few minutes (Did you know that Muslims built the first mental hospital?).

Alcock continued with the rise of university-based education that eventually led to the famous Flexner’s Report that states that doctors should be trained by scientists, not by doctors (it was previously customary for doctors to train by apprenticeship). Next was the rise of pharmaceuticals where doctors now seem to prescribe a drug for everything rather than actually treating patients.

Alcock’s main thesis was that alternative medicine’s current popularity is due to the lack of patient care. Doctors today tend to ask you a few questions and then prescribe you a drug. There is little patient contact and people tend to leave the doctor’s office confused. Since alternative medicine practitioners seem to actually care about the patient, the patient automatically feels more comfortable, completely ignoring the fact that the medicinal part is complete bullshit. This is an interesting point, since it leads to the argument that if we were to privatize our health care industry, the doctors might want to actually find out what’s wrong with you rather than push you out as quickly as possible (under our socialist system, doctors get paid on the quantity of care, not the quality).

In his section about the current state of universities, Alcock attacked post-modernism, which seemed out of place but not surprising since science-minded people hate others who rely on emotion rather than facts. He also criticized his students for having lost the ability to write which I agree completely since I can remember trying to proofread my engineering classmates’ undergrad thesis papers only a few years ago.

Alcock concludes by criticizing the government’s self-regulation rules that give pseudo-scientific ‘professions’ like chiropractors their own government funded agency, thus also giving them legitimacy in the eyes of the people. His overall message seemed to be that people want to avoid pain, rather than work hard for a cure. I interpret this message as people are too stupid and lazy to treat themselves effectively, so they look for whatever is the quickest and easiest way that makes them feel better even though they really never will.

Oh well, as my first paragraph mentions, as long as people want to waste their own time and money, they should be free to do as they please. My only complaint is that since our health care is publically funded, I end up paying when these alternative methods fail and people end up visiting the real doctors too late, thus making treatment more expensive.

Overall, Alcock stayed within his area of expertise and seldom strayed even when asked by members of the audience (he was often asked questions only a doctor should answer. Alcock is a Psychologist). During the Q and A, he answered the questions effectively and with confidence and always seemed in control throughout his presentation. Although I didn't find the topic interesting, Alcock did a good job presenting his ideas and most people seemed to enjoy themselves so I imagine the evening was successful.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"This is an interesting point, since it leads to the argument that if we were to privatize our health care industry, the doctors might want to actually find out what’s wrong with you rather than push you out as quickly as possible (under our socialist system, doctors get paid on the quantity of care, not the quality)."

While it's absolutely true that doctors in our system work this way, and Alcock was dead on when he criticized them for their flagrant use of drugs as a complete cure to just about everything, as well as their irritating penchant for getting you in and out of their office within five minutes, doctors in a privatized system wouldn't get paid depending on whether or not they correctly diagnosed your problem, as you imply, and would still be paid depending on the amount of patients they see. I assume you meant that if health care were privatized, a "bad" doctor who doesn't take time for you and/or who throws pills at you for everything would loose patients to one who did the opposite, which could be the case. However, the main issue here is the number of doctors, not how they are run. Doctors in most cities in Canada are overrun with patients, my home town had about 5 family doctors for about 80 000 people. We had 2 psychiatrists for the same population. They have no choice but to run you out of their office, and medication is a much quicker fix. Population would still be rising with or without privatized doctors. Whether or not a privatized system would lead to more Canadian med students becoming doctors is unknown, and I don't want to speculate on things I can't possibly know. I do know that in order for that change in the system to make a difference, the sheer amount of people becoming doctors would have to increase drastically. So, my problem is not in whether or not you are right about the privatization of our system being the solution to our current problems in health care, but with your implication that this alternative would lead to doctors being paid due to quality of care.

I look forward to a post which further outlines your argument on this issue. :)

Anonymous said...

"This is an interesting point, since it leads to the argument that if we were to privatize our health care industry, the doctors might want to actually find out what’s wrong with you rather than push you out as quickly as possible (under our socialist system, doctors get paid on the quantity of care, not the quality)."

The same bit caught my eye too. After Toronto I went on the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) in Portland Oregon, While having dinner with a scientist-turned-administrator there, I asked him why OHSU had spawned a quackery department. He said that under their private health care system doctors time was money and doctors did not have enough time to talk to patients as much as they should do.

Zak may have identified a problem, but it seems that it is not a solution to advocate privatisation as an instant cure for every problem.

You might also try comparing the train service in France, Germany and Switzerland with that in the USA or even in the UK, where it was crippled by Mrs Thatcher, our own great champion of ideology over common sense.

Zak said...

I have to agree with you on several points here. Privatization doesn't solve everything, especially in the heath care sector and I generally don't advocate it. The point I was lamely trying to make was that a doctor might take better care of a patient if he/she knew that the patient would run of to his/her competitor if unsatisfied.

However, I would prefer a better debate on how to deliver better care since the current system doesn't work very well and will only get more expensive as the population ages.

Introducing some means of private care might be the only solution but most universal healthcare advocates have taken a dogmatic approach and are unwilling to even consider new approaches. All I hope is that people are willing to look at alternatives before the boomers retire and clog the system.

Anonymous said...

Whether it's through privitization or through the government, we need to encourage more kids to join the medical profession. I think both of these methods could do it, so my vote goes to whomever can do it the quickest and the best. That said, I have no idea which of the two it would be.