Both reactions fall short of the ideal Hahnemann upheld when he developed homeopathy as the foundation of rational medicine. He was critical of close-minded dogmatism as much as he abhorred “blind empiricism.” Originally trained as a chemist, Hahnemann recognized that his use of “dynamized” medicine carried the health sciences beyond the explanatory force of chemistry. Rather than discount his findings or discredit the laws of chemistry, however, he focused his criticism on the over-extension of chemistry, which he found to have “taken upon itself to disclose a source at which the general therapeutic properties of drugs are to be ascertained.”[i] Delimiting the explanatory force of chemistry, he stressed that it may help find the medicinal powers of substances, but it cannot reveal anything about its functions in the human body, which is of a living nature.[ii] He recognized that, as a method originally developed to study inorganic material, chemistry was necessarily limited in its capacity to illuminate living processes.

Recently, a new field has developed in the life sciences, which reinforces Hahnemann’s delineation of chemistry, called biosemiotics. One of its central tenets is that living entities do not interact like mechanical bodies, but rather as messages. That is, living systems always exhibit certain organizational characteristics, which enable them to react to differences in their surroundings, and thus to “create” and exchange information. Without this basic difference between life and non-life, evolution as we understand it, would not be possible. In light of this observation, biosemioticians employ methods that follow the model of semiotics – - the study of signs, symbols, and their interpretation- – rather than applying the chemistry and physics of lifeless matter to processes created by life.

As the science of signs in living systems, biosemiotics invites the medical community to reconsider the physicalist terms in which biomedical researchers have traditionally explained the efficacy of medicine. If we endeavor to not only observe (with statistical precision) but to also understand the ways in which medicine informs the operation of the living organisms with which it interacts, then our explanations must extend beyond the physical laws operative in medicine to the information they introduce to living organisms. Within the biosemiotic framework we can legitimately question whether potentized medicines alter the health of organisms by locally controlling the physical laws according to which a diseased body is operating, a consideration that brings us beyond the limitations of physical discourse and into the domain of language.

[ii] Ibid., 115.

First amendment a last priority for some docs

Dear Friend,

If you’ve ever seen an old re-run of Dr. Marcus Welby, M.D., you probably think you’re watching a depiction of medical care not just from a different time, but a different planet. The homey, personal attentions of Dr. Welby bear absolutely zero resemblance to today’s vast and faceless medical bureaucracy that shuttles patients through the system with all the TLC of a cattle drive.

There was a time when doctors like myself were saddened by the passing of this bygone era. But it appears that the current crop of docs doesn’t share my sentimentality. Case in point… some doctors are now asking patients to sign an agreement that they won’t post negative comments about their experiences online.

That’s right: it’s a gag order to keep patients from letting other patients know that a doctor’s got a crummy bedside manner.

Neurosurgeon Dr. Jeffrey Segal founded a company called Medical Justice to help doctors track and prevent online critiques from the patients. So far, about 2,000 doctors have signed on with Segal’s company.

If patients sign the agreement, they’re promising to refrain from posting any online comments referring to a given doctor’s “expertise and/or treatment.” Medical Justice then monitors the web and removes any online comments that violate the agreement.

If patients decide not to sign the waiver, Segal tells doctors to send them packing.

It’s all very 1984. It’s like agreeing to eat at a restaurant on the condition that you won’t tell anyone what the food is like. And I think it stinks.

Not long ago, I told you about a study of nearly 1000 breast cancer patients which revealed that about half of them said their doctor’s explanation of the condition, its diagnosis, and treatment options was insufficient, incomplete, or difficult to understand. If Dr. Segal’s company has its way, none of these women could pass on word of the shortcomings of these doctors to other potential patients.

In the last few years, the gap between doctors and their patients has widened considerably. It’s almost as though doctors believe that medicine itself has become larger than the people they’re seeking to treat.

Thankfully, some people are still determined to stand up for their rights. John Swapceinski created the web site RateMDs.com to give people the opportunity to anonymously rate their physicians. As you can imagine, Swapceinski has been pressured by doctors themselves and organizations like Medical Justice to remove negative comments — but he’s standing strong.

Doctors are “basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights,” Swapceinski correctly points out. “And I really find that repulsive.”

Swapceinski even intends to combat Segal’s Draconian patient waivers by listing the names of doctors requiring these gag orders on a “Wall of Shame” on the RateMDs web site.

AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen said that online doctor reviews “should certainly not be a patient’s sole source of information” when looking for a doctor.

Maybe not. But it’s certainly worth taking into account. And it’s certainly your right to do so.

If you’re interested in reading what other people have written about your doctor – or even in writing a review of your own – you can go online to websites like www.ratemds.com or www.angieslist.com.

Better do it now… while you still can!