The study at Karolinska focused on the white blood cells in the umbilical cords of Caesarean babies and found mutations in their genetic makeup. The researchers noted differences in DNA sequencing of babies delivered via Caesarean and those delivered normally. —The Swedish Local

For most of human history, the two primary causes of premature death have been traumatic injury and infectious disease. Mainstream American medicine, with its heavy emphasis on hardcare practices, grew out of the challenge to solve these two problems. To a great extent it succeeded, with at times miraculous results. Yet the development of hardcare — a combination of complex diagnostic technologies followed by treatments of drugs and/or surgery — has come with unintended consequences that have brought American society to a profound crisis.

Hardcare medicine creates a specialized class of experts to administer to the sick while diminishing individual responsibility for the health of one’s body and mind. Hardcare drugs and surgeries can cause serious side-effects, often worse than the symptoms they attempt to cure. Hardcare treatments prove inadequate against a host of modern illnesses, yet hardcare tends to deny and actively campaign against other healing approaches. Finally, hardcare medicine is extremely expensive and thus exacerbates all of our current economic difficulties.

The failings of hardcare medicine have arisen where it has over-reached its ability and over-stated its role within society. Though hardcare medicine provides excellent tools for dealing with the problems of traumatic injury and infectious disease, it fails terribly for most other health problems.

Curing Birth

Risky labor inductions for “convenience” and all the complications associated with them–increased risk of prematurity, C-section, bladder and bowel injury, and maternal death–are now on the rise all over the country. It troubles me that more women don’t realize that a Cesarean section is major surgery. And it carries with it a risk of maternal death that is five to seven times greater than a normal birth. —Christiane Norrthrup, OB/GYN

Nowhere is the hammer of hardcare medicine more recklessly applied, and with such dire consequences, than in the practice of modem American obstetrics. Though most obstetricians are well-intentioned and extensively trained, to the extent that they follow hardcare practices (not all obstetricians do) their chosen tools are inappropriate for 90-95% of the births they oversee.

Hardcare obstetricians approach pregnancy/birth as if it were a life-threatening illness demanding invasive, high-tech intervention. Thus, while birth can be the most natural and sacred of life processes, hardcare medicine turns it into a messy female problem to be fixed. While birth can unfold as awe-inspiring theater, co-authored by the mother, infant, midwife, father and other supporters, hardcare turns it into a futuristic thriller, starring the doctor, and featuring the very latest in techno-controls. And though birth can be a joyful initiation into the human family — Welcome, child, to a world of love and absolute nurturance — American obstetrics turns it into a mechanical, impersonal, and too often violent medical emergency.

Because hardcare medicine diminishes individual responsibility for bodily processes, hardcare-conditioned women typically turn birth over to their doctors. Such women can be sadly uninformed about the nature of pregnancy and about the purpose of and ways to a fulfilling labor. They tend to let the doctors take care of everything, including time of delivery, drugs for the pain, and surgery if labor goes on too long. Unfortunately, the more that women cede responsibility for their bodies and birthings, the more problematic birth becomes, and the more necessary are the “birth-improving” interventions of hardcare medicine.

Well-Intentioned Interventions

Using an obstetrician for normal birth is like using a pediatrician as a babysitter.—birthing specialist Marsden Wagner

Hardcare interventions into birth begin with the mistaken notion that we can expect, and even schedule, birth to happen at a certain time. If it’s late getting started, then the obstetrician may use drugs to induce labor.

If we expected a rose to bloom on a certain day and then tried to pry it open with pliers when it was “late,” it would not surprise us that the flower would turn out poorly. Nor should it surprise us that chemically-induced labors often progress poorly — the mother/infant was not ready. (The ultimate perversion is caesarian deliveries scheduled according to hospital and doctor needs.)

Once labor begins, most American hospitals now require high-tech fetal monitoring. This consists of a wide belt wrapped around the mother’s waist and attached to a bedside machine that makes irritating noise throughout the labor. The belt prevents the mother from easily moving around according to her needs; it also prevents mother, father and midwife from placing their hands directly upon the lower belly or from massaging the lower back. All of this interference comes from a machine that has been proven in several studies to be of little if any benefit in most births. The main reason we continue to use fetal monitors — instead of non-invasive monitoring with a fetoscope — is so that doctors and hospitals have a record to refer to in the event of malpractice suits.

Other common interferences with labor include: the use of the counter-intuitive supine posture (rather than squatting); the lack of a well-informed labor supporter (simply having one such lay person, or doula, who stays with the mother throughout labor is of great benefit); the use of sterile, medical environments for labor and delivery; and the use of statistical norms to judge and direct the mother’s progress. All such interventions and interferences ultimately lead to a poorly progressing labor and, in reaction, to more invasive interventions.

In such cases the obstetrician might perform an episiotomy — surgically cutting the perineum to widen the mother’s vagina. Or might use forceps to mechanically pull the infant down the birth canal. Or might forgo labor and perform a caesarian delivery. (Roughly 33% of American births are now caesarians. This compares with 9% in Japan and Scandinavian countries.)

However the baby makes it out of the womb, we can expect further interventions. Doctors may cut the umbilical cord prematurely — before the baby has initiated breathing — leading to the classic abuse of hanging the infant upside down and slapping it. The infant will most likely be needle-poked three or four times during the first hour of its life (one or two blood tests, a vitamin K shot, and a hepatitis vaccine). The infant might be separated from its mother and placed alone in a nursery (especially if the mother is less than conscious due to drugs and/or surgery). And the infant might be fed ersatz formula food (hospitals and obstetricians have financial incentives to discourage breastfeeding.)

Obviously, all such interventions have been developed with the best of intentions — birth is risky, it sometimes goes poorly, and hardcare practitioners work hard to keep the mother and baby alive and relatively healthy. Yet studies of births in other countries, combined with studies of midwife-directed births in America, show that for more than 90% of births, obstetrical interventions do more harm than good.

The Damage Done

In 1979, [California] appropriated $750,000 for the first scientific study ever made of the root causes of violence. Two years later a first paper was issued, listing the ten principle causes of crime and violence in our nation. At the top of the list was the violent way we bring our children into the world. —Joseph Chilton Pearce

Harm to the mother can include various side-effects from drugs and surgery, and a further diminishing of her sense of responsibility for body and life. Harm to parents and child includes the medicalizing and mechanical-demeaning of what could have been a profound life experience. Harm to society includes vast amounts of unnecessary anguish and expense.

But it is the babies who suffer most, though hardcare practitioners say otherwise. They claim that babies are unaffected by the events of birth and early childhood. Babies don’t remember, we are assured. The infant born into a cold, brightly-lit room staffed with masked technicians; the infant who is slapped while choking for breath; the infant who is poked, jabbed, weighed, measured and then separated from its mother; the infant boy with the foreskin of his penis sliced off: it doesn’t matter, the experts assure us, babies don’t remember.

It is the grossest of misunderstandings, a terrible foolishness, for which we pay dearly. Humans are conscious, growing, learning and developing from day one. Babies are influenced, positively or poorly, by each and every human interaction. To cause unnecessary physical or emotional pain to an infant is child abuse, plain and simple. To do so under the rubric of “good medicine” is a continuing nightmare from which America must awaken soon.

Power to the Midwives

Studies have repeatedly shown that in healthy mothers with no risk factors, home birth is as safe as hospital birth. Increasingly, savvy women who trust their ability to birth normally are opting to avoid the hospital altogether (or at least have the foresight to hire a midwife or doula). —Christiane Norrthrup, OB/GYN

Fixing birth is so simple: pass a federal law mandating power, status and privilege to the softcare practices of well-trained midwives. Hardcare obstetricians can carry on as they have, for parents who want such deliveries, and for the small percentage of pregnancies that present as high-risk situations. But for those who desire safe, natural, and joyful births, let midwifery become a socially-supported option. Take away the legal and financial barriers that now impede midwives throughout America, and let pregnant women choose.

The return of midwifery will give us healthier children and mothers and will save us a lot of money in the process. Moreover, if the first step in our healthcare system is positively transformed, the rest might naturally follow.

I never had a chemistry kit when I was a kid. It was my least favorite subject in school and killed my grade point average. I doubt that I retained a single chemistry fact or principle five minutes beyond final exams.

Yet when it comes to the care and feeding of my own body, I have become something of a chemistry expert.

Brief background: I was born with digestive problems that persisted chronically throughout childhood. I was constantly sick growing up, with two or three bad colds a year. I missed most of 5th grade with mono. I was hospitalized when I was 14 with ulcerative colitis so severe that the doctors told my parents that nothing could be done and they should prepare for my death.

Two weeks of hospital food and removal from the stresses of my life and I improved enough to be released from the hospital. I had learned two important lessons: first, the doctors didn’t know why I was sick or why I improved; second, my condition changed from day to day depending for the most part on diet.

Even while I was struggling in chemistry class, I had begun a long-range chemistry experiment with the simplest of protocols: pay attention to what I was eating and drinking each day and then, starting with the next morning’s trip to the bathroom, pay attention to my results, including the condition of my hair and skin. If the results were less than ideal, I would consider changing something in my diet.

Or: input chemicals; observe outputs; reassess and make adjustments to inputs. Repeat daily.

The controversy surrounding the new recommendations on the use of mammography casts a dubious light on America’s attempts to reform healthcare. Though everyone agrees that we must reduce costs, we seem unable to address the fact that the high-tech, chemo-industrial practices that define American medicine are unsustainably expensive and unavoidably harmful.

The panel basically said that for women below the age of fifty, regular mammographies do not provide enough benefit to outweigh the risks involved. They made clear that they were not talking about women who were deemed to be at high-risk for the disease, and they strongly advised that such women continue with regular screening, along with all women over the age of fifty.

But for those who are not high-risk and are now asymptomatic — most women — they found that screening detected one aggressive cancer for every 1,900 women tested, while some 190 (10%) would receive false positives. Those women would undergo biopsies and some undetermined number would go on to receive cancer treatment that they never really needed.

During the 14th century the bubonic plague struck with devastating results, wiping out half of the population of Europe and much of Asia. Called the Black Death, it was caused by an infectious bacterium which was spread by flea-infested rats.

I can remember as a child watching a movie about that time and being struck by one scene in particular: a big man, all dressed in black, drives a cart from house to house, picking up the dead and carrying them off for burial. I remember thinking, “How is he getting away with this?” Here is an incredibly bad bug, killing one out of every two people, and this guy is going into infected households, and handling infected bodies, and somehow still managing to put in a sixteen hour day!

Since the fourteenth century, we have learned a lot about bubonic plague. We fully understand the bug that causes it: what it looks like, how it lives, how it travels, how it affects the human body, and how to kill it, which we have proven successful at doing. Yet we know little about the man driving that cart and how and why he lived on. While we have conscientiously studied the half of Europe that died we have ignored the half that survived.

This season of flu pandemic has taken the always heated vaccine argument and intensified it several-fold. Any online article for or against vaccination typically engenders dozens if not hundreds of comments. I’ve engaged in many such conversations — taking the anti-vax position — and have come to conclude that arguing with proponents of vaccination (and the whole “better living through pharmaceuticals” crowd) is like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

Their chief point is that mainstream American medicine is “science-based,” while the anti-vaxers are a rabble of anti-scientific fools, hysterical housewives, and idiot celebrities seeking publicity. They thrust all dissenters into the same camp as global warming deniers and anti-evolution creationists. The science is in, they say, the evidence indisputable, and anyone who disagrees or merely questions should be rounded up and shot full of the latest miracle medicine before they spread their vile condition to others.

No disagreement permitted. No thinking required, except by certified authorities, and no dissension among them from the One True Medicine. Those who express doubts are social pariahs guilty of the most horrible sins.

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has made the interview rounds recently talking about the H1N1 (swine) flu vaccine. On PBS’s News Hour, he stressed the importance of making the vaccine available soon since the H1N1 flu is already spreading. He ominously added that a recent outbreak at WSU had sickened 2000 students.

The doctor didn’t include any details of that outbreak but we can safely assume that if there had been any deaths or serious complications he would have told us. In fact, as the Seattle Times reports: “Most suffered only mild illnesses, but two non-students — an adult and a teen — were briefly hospitalized.”

According to Dr. Fauci, they plan to spend $2 billion on the H1N1 vaccine. They will be recommending it for college students since several of the deaths from the spring outbreak of H1N1 were from that demographic. Fauci implied that it was bad luck for the WSU students that the flu hit before the vaccine was ready.

But they didn’t need it! A group of 2000 contacted the flu and recovered easily and without complications. For far less money than we’re spending on a vaccine we could send a team of medical researchers to conduct interviews of the school population, looking into diet, lifestyle, stressors, environmental conditions, and responses to the flu outbreak to draw out any differences between those who never got sick, those who got sick and easily recovered, and those who developed more serious complications.

Getting to be too late for Obama and healthcare, though he still has a chance for a radical start-over when he addresses the full Congress in two days.

He could do himself a big favor by listening to Moyers even better, put him charge of the process.

Michael Sky | CommonHealth

All healthcare practices, techniques, treatments, devices, and medications can be placed on a spectrum ranging from softest to hardest.

At the softcare end of the spectrum we find such approaches as massage, herbalism, diet, yoga, and emotional counseling, as well as broader social factors, such as public sanitation, sufficient access to pre-industrial food, and income equality.

At the hardcare end of the spectrum we find surgeries, most prescription drugs, acute and traumatic injury care, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, organ transplants, vaccinations, and extreme psychiatric practices, such as electroshock.

The basic premise of commonhealth is that to the extent that an individual, community or nation has over-committed to hardcare approaches, its heathcare expenses rise precipitously, fewer community members have secure access to regular care, and overall outcomes — as measured in such areas as infant mortality, life expectancy, and iatrogenic illness — worsen.

Conversely, when we commit time, money, energy, and attention to softcare approaches, expenses fall, everybody has secure access to quality care, and medical outcomes improve.

An ideal medical system would affirm the importance of both approaches and would utilize mostly softcare, while resorting to hardcare practices only when necessary.

“We will never solve our problems using the same kind of thinking
that caused them in the first place.” —Albert Einstein

The healthcare debate of the past few years must have Einstein nodding sagely from the grave. For all the volumes that have been written, for all the legislative starts and stops, for all the heated discussions of experts and pundits, little has been said about the medical thinking that underlies our current healthcare crisis. We have fixated on the secondary concerns of administrative bureaucracies and payment systems, when we should be exploring long-overdue changes in societal attitudes, lifestyles, and healing practices.

American medicine grew out of and remains mired in the Industrial Age. The “kind of thinking” that characterizes an industrializing society is reflected throughout our current healthcare system:

• the turning of “healthcare” into a mass-produced consumer item;
• the imbalanced relationship between so many doctors and their patients;
• the overuse and abuse of invasive drugs and surgeries;
• the shifting of power and prestige from general practitioners to high-paid specialists;
• the discounting of mental, emotional, and nutritional causes of illness;
• the over-medicalizing of the should-be sacred events of birth and death;
• the granting of ultimate authority to distant, profit-driven bureaucrats;
• the fundamental dis-ease of the modern hospital;
• and the continuing failure to see polluted air, water, and soil as vital public health issues

Dr. Mark Harmon has a great piece in the Huffington Post discussing what he calls Functional Medicine or UltraWellness. He explains that, while mainstream medicine helps at “the very end stages of disease” and for acute emergencies, raging infections, broken bones, etc, it does little to address chronic illnesses or to ameliorate the long-term conditions or lifestyles that lead to serious illness.

But when I worked in the emergency room, I felt I was saving people just before (or sometimes after) they were washed DOWNSTREAM and over the waterfall to their death.

I began to wonder what led them to this point — what happened UPSTREAM in the process of disease and illness. What were the real causes of disease? If I could answer that question, then I thought I might be able to help prevent disease in the first place.