During the 20th century,
the system of scientific medicine has made dramatic progress in curing and
reducing the incidence of many diseases. There has been massive reduction in
death rates all over the world resulting from the achievements of scientific
medicine. It has been possible to bring forth a large number of highly
effective drugs that have been discovered through painstaking medical research.
This has also brought about significant improvement in public health and
hygiene.
However, the modern
scientific medicine has not proved very effective in handling a whole area of
chronic illness and general, not very well defined, ill health. It is now
increasingly being realized that scientific medicine is not very successful in
addressing the problems of ill health having their roots in a person’s
psychosomatic, social, cultural, behavioural or occupational environment. It is
becoming increasingly clear that despite dramatic advancements the system of
scientific medicine has serious limitations because it does not take into
account the environment of human existence, functioning and life as integral to
human health. Merely studying the ‘causes’ of some human health problems in the
environmental conditions or pollution and finding curative remedies for these
is an extremely narrow view of the relationship between environment and human
health.
The primitive tribes as well those societies
that have retained their unbroken linkage with their ancient past still have an
instinctive holistic view, which is derived from intimate knowledge of the
local ecosystems in their environments. Each such society treats the local
ecosystem as dominant and makes all human activities subservient to it. This
approach to environment and human life is still observed in ancient and
oriental civilizations.
The holistic thinking continued in
the western world also in some or the other form till the Renaissance Period.
However, with the rise of scientific movement in the mid-17th
century, the materialistic-mechanistic worldview and the reductionist approach
to analysis became dominant. This led to shifting of focus from the whole to
parts and the holistic thinking was gradually abandoned in the mainstream
western worldview. As a consequence, non-holistic nature of much of the modern
education leaves most the educated people with conceptual frameworks that are
too narrow to allow holistic thinking. However, in recent times, there has been
a decline in mechanistic-reductionist thinking as its limitations have become
more and more apparent. Many attempts are being made now to build a synthesis
of ideas and evolve holistic paradigms in every field, including human health.
In the context of human life, the
shift from reductionist to holistic thinking may be seen in the words of Peter
Russell (1982) “For humanity to accomplish a profound shift in attitude, the
skin-encapsulated model of the self needs to be augmented by the realization that the individual is an
integral part of Nature, no more isolated from the environment than a cell in
the body is isolated from the human organism.”
Arthur Koestler (1979) in rejecting
the reductionist philosophy developed the concept of ‘HOLON’ as a system
consisting of subsystems, which is also a subsystem of some supersystem. He
further developed the concept of SOHO (Self-regulating Open Hierarchic Order),
which is an explanation of a form of dynamic equilibrium (‘homeostasis’) that
will occur only if the self-assertive and integrative tendencies of the
components of holons counterbalance each other. If this does not happen, there
will be disorder and chaos. His theory has profound implications for society
and for understanding human health.
In the last quarter of 20th
century, it has been gradually realized that before we can devise ways and
means for making and maintaining a human being healthy, it is necessary to
first understand what is to be accomplished. This means that we should first
understand the meaning of human health.
Jonas Salk (1972) in defining the
health asserts that “The health is wholeness and sickness implies impairment of
parts of the whole. Distinctions must be made and the relationship understood
between the parts and the whole, so that attention may then be directed to
maintaining or to repairing the health of each appropriately. The meaning of
the health as a wholeness can be revealed only if distinction between the parts
and the whole and the relationship between them is properly understood.” He has
further pointed out that for developing a system of holistic health, it is
necessary to first think about the mankind in terms of highly ordered,
differentiated system of individuals having widely different attributes,
characteristics and requirements. Only by thinking in these terms, it can be
possible to focus attention on the relationship between the parts i.e. the
individuals and the whole; the whole in this context meaning the human species.
An understanding of the relationship of individuals to each other and to the
whole mankind is the starting point. This shall lead to the comprehension that
human health is not merely a question of the health of one part to the
exclusion of another or of one part functioning against another, but as the
health of the whole. This view thus, clearly emphasizes the relevance of social
environment in the problem of human health. It also points out that the problem
of man’s health can not be dealt with by solving only the problems of
individual human body and its environment. Even if these problems are solved,
it will still be necessary to deal with the health of the human species as a
whole and its global environment.
To achieve a state of health, it is
definitely necessary to understand the development and functioning of cells and
organs. However, in the broadest sense, it is also necessary that we understand
the development and functioning of an individual in his/her personal physical,
psychological, familial, occupational, cultural and social environment as well
as of the human species in the global environment. If total health potential of
an individual is to fully manifest, the state of full health must prevail not
only in the individual but also in mankind and most importantly in the global
environment too.
To conclude, it may be pointed out
that an individual human being can attain and maintain a state of his/her full
potential of physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual health only in a
healthy environment that comprises his/her particular biosphere, sociosphere
and psychosphere as well as whole global environment of human species. In this
sense, human species needs to be studied along with all aspects of its
environment i.e. from the viewpoint of health as wholeness of Nature. A science
of holistic health, as distinct from the present science of curative medicine,
needs to be developed to deal with the problems of sickness and misery arising
in the bodies, psyche, society and environment of mankind. This would first of
all require a shift of medical education paradigm away from the current mechanistic-reductionist
one towards a holistic one.
References:
1.
Arthur
Koestler (1979): JANUS: A SUMMING UP 2nd Edition. Pan Books, London.
2.
Jonas
Salk (1972): MAN UNFOLDING. p. 103, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Bangalore,
New Delhi, Calcutta, Madras.
3.
Peter
Russell (1982): THE AWAKENING EARTH. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
No comments:
Post a Comment