Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
The Coming Revolution in Health Care
JAMES F. JEKEL
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
Yale Medical School
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
From: JASA 30 (September 1998): 116-123.
[Presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation,
Nyack College, Nyack, New York, Aug. 14, 1977]
We are in the midst of a revolution in the assumptions, goals, and methods of
health care. Assumptions seriously being questioned include: (1) that
scientific
medicine is largely responsible for our current level of health, (2)
that scientific
medicine will markedly extend our life expectancy beyond current
levels, (3) that
the biomedical model is a satisfactory guide to medical practice and research,
(4) and that most health care is provided by professionals. There is increasing
concern that the current approach to health care is causing physical, social,
and cultural harm and that the current directions cannot continue for
cost reasons
alone.
The Scriptures inform our current dilemma by emphasizing (1) that health is the
result of a way of life and not a product that can be purchased from healers,
(2) that we must be as concerned with improving the quality of life
as with extending
its length, and (3) that health care is best when provided in the
context of the
family and immediate community.
In 1902 Thomas Kuhn published his now famous book, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, in which he debated the logical positivist idea that
science progresses
gradually from one stage to the next strictly on the basis of reason.1 Kuhn argued
that science progresses from one stage to another through
intellectually and emotionally
turbulent periods of conceptual revolution, and these revolutions arc followed
by extended eras of relative quiet, during which the scientific field seeks to
reexamine its subject matter from the new perspectives and assumptions acquired
during the revolution,. Kuhn called the new synthesis a "paradigm."
One quiet period continues until the assumptions and methods of the
reigning paradigm
prove insufficient to answer the new questions that appear. Thus, according to
Kuhn, the progress of a science is more like climbing uneven stairs than riding
up a smooth ramp.
It is my thesis that we are now entering a period of conceptual revolution in
the area of health care
which bears similarity to those described by Kuhn. The assumptions and methods
of current medical research and care are increasingly being subjected
to intense
debate, which will lead to a different synthesis or
"paradigm," probably
within the next decade. However, the current biomedical paradigm's assumptions
and methods are deeply entrenched at every level of our society, and the forces
fighting for this paradigm are extremely powerful in terms of
scientific, economic,
and political influence. Moreover, the health care system is now the nation's
largest employer, with representatives in almost every community in
the country,
which means that there is a large constituency available to fight for
the status
quo.
The Past and Present Contributions of Medicine
The current medical paradigm is not as sharply delineated as, for example, were
the geocentric view of the universe or Newtonian physics. Nevertheless, many of
its assumptions may be summarized. First, it assumes that our current level of
health is due mainly to our public health/medical care system, which began with
the discovery of the germ theory in the late 1800's. It is a popular idea (even
among medical professionals) that the control of communicable disease
is largely
the achievement of medical science (through immunization,
antibiotics, etc.) However,
historians have increasingly come to understand that medicine as it
has been practiced
during the past century has had little impact in producing the level of health
we enjoy today. The sanitary revolution in Europe, particularly in England, was
well under way, and its impact in reducing infant mortality, was already being
seen before the development of the germ theory. The sanitary
revolution came about
from the personal convictions of many people, which were partly
biblical in origin,
that it was better for society's health and morals to live its
cleanliness rather
than in filth. The germ theory reinforced that movement, of course,
and strengthened
its theoretical foundations, but it was not its cause. Yet it was the sanitary
revolution which, as much as any other thing, has restored society to today's
levels of health. The term "restored" is probably correct
here, because
many of the infectious diseases, including the leading killers,
tuberculosis and
infant diarrhea, were made the severe problems they became by the processes of
urbanization and industrialization. Their resolution over the past century has
been primarily a process of learning to live in industrial cities
without opening
the floodgate to disease.
Tuberculosis, for example, was the leading killer in the industrial West in the
mid-1800's, with death rates that sometimes exceeded 500/100,000 per year. The
death rates of tuberculosis have been declining steadily since about 1850, and
by 1949 it had become only a shadow of its former self. However, medicine had
no effective cure (none that could significantly affect the death rate) before
1949, when streptomycin was discovered. Tuberculosis had declined, not because
of scientific medicine, but because of a number of related social and technical
changes that were largely outside the purview of medicine:
improvement in society's
(1) nutrition, (2) socioeconomic status, and (3) living and working conditions
(especially the reduction of crowding), and (4) the elimination of the spread
of tuberculosis through milk by Pasteurization and by the elimination
of infected
herds, and (5) increased genetic resistance of the population to the disease.
Most of the epidemic infectious diseases were also declining rapidly during the
late 1800's and early 1900's, before medicine had either immunization (except
for smallpox) or antibiotics. Today, few evaluative studies of the
effectiveness
of modern medicine show striking results, and most of the current
screening programs
are considered to be of dubious value. The world-renowned bacteriologist from
the Rockefeller Foundation, Rene Dubos, has put it this way:
Clearly, modern medical science has helped to clean up the mess created by urban and industrial civilization. However, by the time laboratory medicine came effectively into the picture the fob had been carried far toward completion by the humanitarians and social reformers of the nineteenth century. Their romantic doctrine that nature is holy and healthful was scientifically naive but proved highly effective in dealing with the most important health problems of their age. When the tide is receding from the beach it is easy to have the illusion that one can empty the ocean by removing water with a pail. The tide of infections and nutritional diseases was rapidly receding when the laboratory scientist moved into action at the end of the past century.2
Medicine as it has been practiced during the past century has had little impact in producing the level of health we enjoy today.
The past President of the Blue Cross Association, Walter J. McNerncy, listed as
the first health myth to he debunked the idea that "Must health services
make a big difference in the health of a population, thus, with enough money,
health can be purchased."3 Even an apologist for modern
biomedical technology,
Dr. Lewis Thomas, put it his way:
In any case, we do not really owe much of today's population problems to the technology of medicine.
Modern medical science is a recent arrival, and the world population had already been set on what seems to he its irreversible course by the civilizing technologies of agriculture, engineering, and sanitation,-most especially the latter.4
Life Expectancy
A second incorrect assumption of many persons is the promise of medical science
for the future. Since our life expectancy at birth has increased approximately
30 years over the past century, it is assumed that biomedical technology will
continue this progress into the future, so that in another century or so, our
life expectancy may he 100 or so. This overlooks the fact that during the same
past century, the life expectancy of white males at retirement age
(65) has increased
but 2 to 3 years! Life expectancy at birth has improved greatly due
to the reduction
of infant mortality, childhood diseases, tuberculosis, etc.; what it means is
that most infants can now expect to reach retirement age. What has not happened
is a major change in the maxilength of life, since modern medical science has
little capacity to alter significantly the course of the chronic degenerative
diseases, Indeed, it is as true now as when Moses wrote the 90th
Psalm (approximately
1400 years B.C.) that ". . . the days of our years are
threescore years and
ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore ..."5 Again,
as Dr. Thomas
says:
If we are not struck down prematurely by one or another of today's diseases, we 1ive a certain length of time and then we die, and i doubt that medicine will ever gain a capacity to do anything much to modify this. I can see no reason for trying and no hope of success anyway. At a certain age, it is in our nature to wear out, to come unhinged and to die, and that is that.5
He does add a very salutary emphasis on the quality, rather than the quantity, of life, which is certainly consistent with the biblical perspective:
My point here is that I very much doubt that the age at which this happens will be very drastically changed, for most of us, when we have learned more about how to control disease. The main difference will be that many of us will die in relatively good health . . . .7
The Bible, as well as the more astute of medical scientists, cautions us not to
look to scientific medicine to bring us eternal life.
The Biomedical Model
Another problematic assumption of modern medicine and health care is what many
have called the "biomedical model." This model assumes that our lack
of health is primarily due to disease, that most of our diseases
produce anatomic
and physiologic changes, and that diseases can be cured if these
alterations are
restored to their normal state.8 Disease is seen fundamentally as alterations
in body biochemistry, usually in predictable patterns. The task of
the scientist
and physician are to identify the abnormalities associated with the disease and
discover methods of restoring these to "normal", which is
seen as being
equivalent to a "cure."
The largest institution built in honor of this assumption is the
National Institutes
of Health, which was started in 1948 and which has guided the
direction of American
medical research and (hence) medical education and practice since the
early 195O's.
There have been great achievements in some dimensions of our
knowledge of disease,
but great problems have also been produced. Medicine has rapidly
become more complex
and dependent upon expensive diagnostic and therapeutic technology. This has,
in turn, forced specialization and other expensive changes. Legal and ethical
problems are created faster than they are solved. The human dimension is being
lost from the medical care process.9) Medical education has almost lost sight of
the increasingly well documented fact that the origins of most of our diseases
lie predominantly in our nutrition, our environment, and our behavior. As Engel
has put it:
in modern Western society biomedicine not only has provided a basis for the scientific study of disease, it has also become our own culturally specific perspective about disease, that is, our folk model (italics mine). Indeed, the biochemical model is now the dominant folk model of disease in the Western World.10
Engel suggests the new paradigm should be based on a
"biopsychosocial model",
in which the role of social and psychological factors is adequately emphasized.
I would like to add the spiritual dimension to his list, for I believe that we
will sooner or later discover that we cannot adequately deal with the subject
of health without considering the issue of the meaning and purpose of life, and
man's relationship to his Creator. One modern area of interest where
this is gradually
being appreciated is the field of thanatology.
One of the glaring weaknesses of the biomedical model is its lack of
understanding
of, or ability to deal with, health. There are more than one hundred schools of
disease in this country, but, to my knowledge, not one school of
health. Medical
schools notoriously focus most of their effort on teaching about
disease, including
its diagnosis and treatment. Schools of public health emphasize the origin of
disease and the organization of care, rather than how to promote health. But,
as the World Health Organization's preamble states: "Health is . . . not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity." We must face
realistically the
fact that we do not have
a "health care system . We have a "disease care
system," and very little that its does is done to promote health
in a positive
sense.
The Definition of Health
One of the difficulties we have in setting national health goals and measuring
our progress (or lack of it) is our inability to define health. The
WHO statement
just quoted defines health as ". . . a state of complete physical, mental,
and social well being . . .", which, in addition to being unattainable in
this life, is not very helpful. Duhos has clearly pointed to one
weakness of the
biomedical model:
health and disease cannot be defined merely in terms of anatomical, physiological, or mental attributes. Their real measure is the ability of the individual to function in a manner acceptable to himself and to the group of which he is a part.11
Thus, social functioning, not biochemical state, may be closer to a useful concept of health, and it also may be easier to measure. It is not as widely accepted to date, partly because it also has ambiguities and partly because to agree on such a definition would be to open the flood gates to a reallocation of resources away from what are now considered health activities. Dubos and others have also emphasized that health is not so much freedom from stress (which is unattainable in our sinful world) as it is the ability to adapt to the stresses to which we are subject:
the states of health or disease are the expressions of the success or failure experienced by the organism in its efforts to respond adaptively to environmental challenges.12
Rates of death and illness are clearly insufficient to measure health; at most
they measure some of the deviations from it. In the last analysis,
one must agree
with Duncan Clark that: "As for health no fully
acceptable concept exists".13 Here is certainly a fruitful field
of research
for those with a biblical perspective.
Iatrogenesis
In my first contact with our Professor of Surgery, Carl Mover, he
began the lecture
with the Latin phrase:
primun nocere, which, I understand, can
he translated:
"first, do no harm." It is a principle that made sense at that time
(1958) and makes even more sense today. The first obligation of a
physician should
be not to harm the patient. If that is so, it would seem reasonable
that the first
obligation of the health care .sysie;st also should he to do no harm. Yet there
is evidence that the medical care system does a great deal of harm to
individuals
through unnecessary surgery, inappropriate or unnecessary
medications, and pointing
to pharmacologic or surgical solutions whea changes in environment, life style,
or human relationships are the only remedies that offer hope for real
improvement.
Much of the unnecessary surgery that is done comes from economic pressures in cities where we have more surgeons than are needed,
and it is reinforced by the population's tendency to look to surgeons as modern
miracle workers. Overmedication may arise from a sense of despair on
the physician's
part ("I don't know what else to do") or from the need to get on to
the next patient (one study showed that physicians often write
prescriptions for
medication as a ritualistic way of terminating a patient visit, even in the absence
of a clear indication for the medication.)
Less studied, but perhaps more important sources of harm from our medical care
approach are the social and cultural effects of a strongly
institutionalized biomedical
model of health and healing. Illich calls these "social and
cultural iatrogenesis,"
and these consist in the social and cultural distortions that occur by strict
adherence to the biomedical model of disease14 Zola also points to the social
dangers inherent in the increasing medicalixation of life.15 We are
turning less
to religion or law for the final decision to social problems and more
to medicine.
Therefore, behavior (e.g., murder) which centuries ago might have
been dealt with
as a problem of sin, and more recently as lawlessness, is now first subjected
to a medical test: if the perpetrator was somehow "ill" at the time
of the act, he becomes "not guilty by reason of insanity." The point
here is not to argue whether this is good or had, but to emphasize
that the final
tribunal and the first agent of attempted change, in this, as in
countless other
areas of life, is coming to he medical authority.
The medicalization of life also increases the social control which a
small group
of persons (health "professionals") exercise over others.
Thus we have,
as a society, given to the physician the ultimate right to decide who does and
does not have the right to large amounts of society's resources. A decision to
give someone a heart transplant, or to put someone on renal dialysis, may cost
society $50,000 or more. The decision to give one person these resources means
that others will not have access to them, because our resources as a
society are
limited, Second, society has given the physician the power to give to some, and
to exclude from others, the right to a socially acceptable form of
deviance known
as sickness. Taleott Parsons first clearly defined the social
contract of Western
Society known as the "sick role," in which the society gives certain
benefits to the person who is defined by a "competent professional"
to he ill, and in turn requires certain behavior from that person.
Society offers:
(1) lack of blame for his/her condition and (2) to excuse him/her from normal
role obligations during this period, in return for which society requires the
individual (1) to want to recover and to seek out competent medical
help and (2)
to cooperate with those who are prescribing the therapy. Sociologists
are increasingly
concerned over the power given to the medical profession.
Costs
It is the costs of our current direction in medical care, however, which will
ultimately force major changes in the way we approach health care. The society
will no longer tolerate an inflation in the cost of medical care that is twice
the national average when we
What has not happened is a major change in the maximum length of life, since modern medical science has little capacity to alter significantly the course of the chronic degenerative diseases.
are already spending about 9% of the gross national product on medical care. We
hear stories such as that General Motors now pays more to Blue Cross and Blue
Shield than to U.S. Steel in a given year. That might be all right if we were
getting a proportional benefit, but increasingly the population is
becoming restless
and is questioning whether it is receiving its money's worth.
Certainly, the marvels
continue for many forms of acute medical problem and accident. But as
the population
now is mostly living past retirement age, a higher and higher proportion of all
care is for chronic problems, where the biomedical approach has the
least effect.
Dr. Thomas admits that the application of inadequate technology is costly:
Offhand, I cannot think of any important human disease for which medicine possesses the capacity to prevent or cure outright where the cost of the technology is itself a major problem. The price is never as high as the cost of managing the same diseases during the earlier stages of ineffective technology.16
He admits that "halfway technology" is inordinately costly, and the
central question is whether biomedical technology will ever he able to become
cost-effective technology in the chronic degenerative diseases, or
will we become
saddled with increasingly costly (but ineffective) halfway technology that also
compounds ethical and legal questions? For example, will biomedical technology
ever be able to restore a smashed braincaused by highway
carelessness? Or a cirrhotic
liver, almost destroyed by alcoholism and malnutrition? Or an
emphysematous lung
that has been destroyed by decades of smoking and infection? Most, if not all,
of the examples of "effective technology" relate either to infectious
disease or to acute medical and surgical emergencies. We should not
deny the individual
contributions of modern medicine in these areas; indeed we should be grateful.
What concerns me is that modern medicine, which can be so effective
in restoring
individuals with certain kinds of problems to productive life, is now becoming
so saddled with ineffective technology in other areas that its real
contributions
are becoming less available to the average peson. It is even less likely that
our expensive western medical technology, complete with its folk
model of disease,
can benefit the developing nations, even though we are exporting it
at this time.
A new approach to health and health care is clearly needed. What
insights do the
Scriptures provide as to what changes should he made in our
assumptions, concepts,
and approaches?
Prevention as the Way to Health
There are many biblical insights which could be brought to a consideration of
health; foremost among them is that health is the result of a way of
life and
not the product of nostrums. The broad commands of Scripture portray Cod's will
for His people: 'Ye shall he holy, for I the Lord your Cod am holy." (Lev.
19:2). The holy walk with Cod emphasized not defiling oneself (Lev.
11:44); this
required, among other things, that man distinguish "between holy
and unholy,
and between unclean and clean." (Lev. 10:10) The Scriptures provided the
guidelines for the Israelites to keep a holy walk with Cod, and obedience had
the promise of physical blessings (health) as well as spiritual blessings:
If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, and will do that which is right in his sight, and will listen to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will not pot any of the diseases upon you which I brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the Lord who heals you. (Ex. 15:26)
At the pool of Bethesda, Jesus healed the man who had been ill for 38 years and
told him "Sin no more so that nothing worse befall you." In Leviticus
18:5, Cod tells His people through Moses, "Therefore keep my statutes and
judgments, which, if a man does, he shall live by means of
them." Other Scriptures
could be quoted, but the main point is that the biblical view of
health is something
that was a result of one's entire way of life, not a commodity that
could he purchased
from healers. Health was something that included the idea of
wholeness, soundness,
safety, and peace. Our world desperately needs to get away from the
idea of health
as a commodity, a product, and see it as an organic part of one's way
of life.
The specific elements that are most clearly related to good health
can be identified
by means of epidemiology, the science of determining why disease (or
health) occur
when they do and in whom they do. Fundamental to good health is nutrition,
Nutrition. Malnutrition can be either undernutrition or overnutrition. By and
large, undernutrition is the plight of the poor wherever they are in the world,
and overnutrition is the companion of the well-to-do. Undernutrition not only
robs one of the vigor to be creative and productive; protein undernutrstion, in
particular, also combines synergistically with the infectious
diseases to produce
high mortality rates among children, particularly following the
period of weaning.
Measles is a serious but seldom fatal illness among unimmunized but
well nourished
children, but it has case-fatality rates as high as 20 to 25% among
malnourished
children, a death rate hundreds of times as high as among well
nourished children."17
On the other hand, overnutrition, particularly when combined with a sedentary
life style, contributes to a variety of degenerative disorders in adults, such
as coronary artery disease, strokes, and diabetes. For example, the
dietary intake
of refined sugar (sucrose) in this country in 1850 was about 40
pounds per person
per year; now it is over 100 pounds per person per year.
The Environment. A second foundation of health is a clean
environment. This includes
cleanliness from the many microbes capable of causing severe disease
in man (although
it does not imply a sterile existence.) The importance of this was demonstrated
during the
sanitary revolution. It includes clean water, food, and living
environment. More
recently we have become more aware of the problem of toxic substances in water,
food, and the air, but at present we have only hints as to how this pollution
may affect human health.
Behavior. Central to a way of life is one's behavior. Every aspect of
our behavior
has health implications, although we often do not realize this. Most Americans
who smoke are aware of the potential risks that smoking brings for
cancer of the
bronchus, throat, nose, and mouth. Less well known is that cigarette
smoking also
increases the risk for heart attacks. Still less well known to those involved
is that the Islamic custom of "purdah", by reducing the
amount of sunlight
acting on ergosterol in the skin (and hence reducing the available vitamin 0)
leads to osteomalacia in adolescent women. This, in turn, frequently produces
deformed pelvises and difficult labor and delivery causing infant and maternal
mortality.
In many of the developing nations, women seek to wean the children
early and convert
to bottle feeding, in order to imitate the wealthy. Because of the
lack of refrigeration,
the milk is likely to be swarming with bacteria, and due to the low purchasing
power of many who do this, the "milk" may be only water colored with
a small amount of powdered milk.17 It is not known how much malnutrition among
young children is due to early weaning from the breast to the bottle, but the
toll is undoubtedly heavy. Moreover, by shortening the nursing
period, women reach
peak fecundity sooner following the delivery of a child than they would if they
nursed over a longer time, and thus this behavior pattern also contributes to
increased worldwide fertility.18
One of the commonest types of infectious disease in the West are the venereal
diseases. Estimates of the number of new cases of gonorrhea last year go over
two million. Syphilis, although not rampant, remains steady at
approximately 100,000
per year in the United States. A newly appreciated venereal threat is
from herpes
viruses, especially HVH II. Antiobiotics have proved impotent to
eradicate these
diseases; control of behavior could!
The above three factors, nutrition, environment, and behavior, are the primary
factors influencing the level of health any population enjoys. Medical care is
at most the "fine tuning" of our health level; it is these
factors that
determine the "channel." It is instructive to review the
biblical concern
for human nutrition, sanitation, and behavior. The concern for proper and pure
food is seen in many biblical references (Table I). The concern for
personal cleanliness,
for pure water, for sewage disposal, for rapid burial of the dead,
and for isolation
from contamination by discharges, are quite specific. Behavior was
carefully prescribed
both as to justice and as to cleanliness, and venereal disease was effectively
prevented by the code of sexual morality (Ex. 20:14, Lev. 18:20,
etc.). Moreover,
the priest served as the health officer, to oversee that the community was holy
and clean, to diagnose and treat problems, and to pronounce healed
persons clean.19
In summary, the biblical insight that health derives from a holy and clean way
of life, and not from purchasing the services of healers, is a perspective that must he recovered by our
society if we are to achieve the measure of health we desire at a price we can
afford. But who can influence human behavior? Suffice it to say that
how we behave
derives from what we ultimately believe is of greatest value, and it is here,
in determining the priorities of individuals, families, and communities, that
religion has its most crucial impact on health.
Quantity or Quality of Life?
It is only in recent years that any serious challenge has been raised
to the priorities
of medical care; heretofore the first priority has been to save (or
prolong) life,
regardless of the cost in money and suffering. Death rates are the
best developed
and most used measure of the success or failure of our medical care system. The
development of the technology of medicine to include organ
transplants, artificial
life support systems, etc. has forced reconsideration of the limits of medicine
with respect to prolonging life. For a while there was a lot of talk
of "cryogenics",
in which it was the hope to freeze bodies immediately upon the point of death
and keep the body in deep freeze, along with all of the medical records, until
medical science discovered a way to thaw the body and revive it and
simultaneously,
cure that disease.
Increasingly there is an appreciation for the fact that saving lives
is an appropriate
first priority in acute
One of the glaring weaknesses of the biomedical model is its lack of understanding of, or ability to deal with, health.
disease, but that improving the quality of life is a more appropriate
and realistic
goal than extreme efforts to prolong life when it comes to the
chronic, degenerative
diseases. Even a leading proponent of biomedical technology seems to be saying
the same thing.20 The problem is that although there is increasing lip service
paid to the idea of retooling the delivery of care to emphasize the quality of
life, these priorities are seldom reflected in the objectives of
current medical
research and education. Just as nutrition is a neglected subject in our schools
of medicine and public health so is the subject of rehabilitation;
"cure"
is taught much better than "care". But for economic
reasons, among others,
new kinds of primary care professionals are being trained (e.g.,
nurse-practitioners
and physicians' assistants) who often have a better grasp of the
meaning of "care"
than do many physicians. The cost of hospital care is forcing the expansion of
home care programs. People are finding that alternatives such as
Hospice are better
for persons dying of cancer than the typical acute hospital.'° The coming
revolution in medical care will move the "quality of life" to a new
place
Table I
Representative Selections from the Old Testament Sanitary Code
Key texts: Leviticus 19:2; 10:10
1. Personal Cleanliness
a. Hand washing, esp. before meals-Mark 7:1-3 b. Whole body after
contamination-Lev.
15:5 c. Wash clothes after contamination-Lev. 11:28; 15:5
2. Pure Water Supply
a. Avoid water contaminated by dead animal-Lev. 11:32-36
3. Sewage Disposal
a. Bury it outside the camp-Deut. 23:12-14
4. Bury Dead Soon
a. Before nightfall-Deut. 21:23; Acts 5:6
5. Pure Foods
a. Fruits & vegetables not prohibited b. Meats-Lev. 11:1-8; 29-31
c. Fish-Lev.
11:9-12 d. Don't eat dead animals-Deut. 14:21 e. Don't eat old
food-Lev. 19:5-8
6. Isolation
a. If one touches the dead-Lev. 5:2; 22:4 b. If one touches unclean
discharges-Lev.
5:3 c. For those who have a discharge-Lev. 15:1-13 d. For those who have skin
diseases-Lev. 13 e. Of a woman following childbirtb-Lev. 12:1-8
(prevents epidemic
"childbed fever") f. Terminal disinfection-Lev. 15:1-13; 14:34-48
7. Control of Venereal Disease
a. Morality-Ex. 20:14; Lev. 18:20
8. Priest is the Health Officer
Leviticus 13, 14
Nutrition, environment and behavior are the primary factors influencing the level of health any population enjoys. Medical care is at most the "fine tuning" of our health level.
of prominence in the priorities of medical care.
The biblical message is concerned for both the quantity and quality
of human life,
but these are not primary goals. Bather they are the result of obedience to God
as revealed in the Scriptures. The biblical concern for faith,
obedience, holiness,
and justice clearly place those who stand in the Hebrew-Christian tradition in
the position of supporting a balance between the two, and we should vigorously
support efforts to restore concern for the quality of life to its
rightful position
in medical care. Moreover, as one considers the nature of "health",
it is important to see that the healthy person is one for whom life, and all of
its activities, has deep personal meaning. At the level of tactics,
Viktor Frankel
has demonstrated how important it is for life to have meaning.21 He gives one
example of how an elderly man was restored to mental health when he
saw that his
widowhood and its resultant loneliness meant that his beloved wife did not have
to suffer the same; his suffering then had meaning for him and became
a last sacrifice
for her. Only then was it tolerable, because it bad meaning. Going further, it
yet remains for someone to demonstrate that human wholeness, health
if you will,
must include our ability to stand before God as justified sinners;
there are suggestions
that those who wholeheartedly embrace the full theological meaning of the Bible
are better able to live, and to die, in health. The area needs far
more demonstration
as well as research.
Care Must be in the Context of the Family
Doe of the current myths about medical care is that most medical care is given
by health professionals. Levin and others have emphasized that, in
fact, perhaps
75% of all health care in this country is given by individuals to themselves or
to members of their families.22 It is just as foolish to see this as bad as it
is to consider all professional care good. There is currently a
powerful movement,
often called the "self-care" movement, to increase the competence of
nonprofessionals to care for themselves and others. This is not to imply that
"kitchen surgery" will return, but rather that all efforts should be
made to give the individual person and family as much responsibility over their
own lives and health as possible. This implies that the role of the physician
will increasingly become (1) to do the highly technical advanced diagnosis and
treatment, and (2) to serve as consultants-yes, consultants-to those
giving most
of the health care: families and non-physician primary care persons. We cannot
afford to restore physicians to their past prominent role as givers of primary
care; they are too costly, and they are not trained well for that
task, anyway.
Norman Cousins gave a dazzling account of his determination to treat
himself for
a condition considered medically hopeless, and of his success.23 The
prominent sociologist Lois Pratt points out that "the more numerous and
vital the functions
the family performs successfully for its members, the stronger is the
family system;
the fewer the important functions performed, the weaker the
system."24 From
this she goes on to conclude:
The family is a social unit with considerable potential for performing health care, since families are held legally responsible for sustaining their members' health, they maintain a physical plant which is suitable for health care practice, and the members live together in relationships of mutual care and support.24
In contrast to the potential of the family to perform health care, she reminds us of the current trends, and in this she is absolutely correct:
The emerging medical care system is based on specialization of work, centralization of activity in large complex units, hureancraticizatinn of the work unit, control by management over work and personnel, corporate involvemeat in and exploitation of all aspects of the health market, and extension of profit-making to all sectors of health care.24
One of the byproducts of these large health institutions we are creating is a
tendency to impersonality of care.22 How can costs he reduced and
care he as personal
as possible? By restoring it to the context of a loving family. The
medical care
system should he, in the last analysis, a family support system, or so it seems
to me. However, at the present, families do a better job of
supporting the health
system (most persons in health care are doing well economically) than
the system
is doing of supporting the family (office and clinic hours are for
the convenience
of the provider rather than the patient, as are appointments, etc.)!
The emergency
room has gained immense popularity not because it is the best place to receive
care, but because it is the only place people know will be open 24
hours per day
with someone there to see them.
Whether self-care as a movement will be sustained, its existence has shown that
there arc options available to the family. Whether the family will
play an increased
role in the future in "selecting, coordinating, and supervising
professional
care; determining the forms and conditions of medical intervention; evaluating
the outcomes of all these interventions; maintaining health records
on the family;
and planning a healthy lifestyle, including the choice of community residency,
employment, leisure activity, diet, and other health maintenance
practices"24
remains to he seen. Certainly not all families or individuals now either want
this role or are capable of it. But in this direction may lie our best hope for
both economy and effectiveness of health care.
The Bible does not appear, at first glance, to inject itself into this debate,
but on further consideration it would seem to suggest that healing is, in fact,
the proper role for the family, including the larger family composed
by a religious
congregation. The Fifth Commandment (Honor thy father and thy mother) is often
interpreted only in terms of young children and their parents. However, Jesus
interpreted it in terms of caring for ones aged parents (Mark
7:10-13). If interpreted
also, or primarily, in this way, the promise (long life) has special meaning.
In Acts 6 and James 1 there
are evidences that the early church received and acted upon the command to care
for each other, and James 5:14 shows that this includes a healing ministry. The
oil in this passage should probably be seen as giving a medication
that was conceived
as having medicinal value, rather than primarily spiritual
significance (for example,
note the use of oil in Luke 10:34). The pattern of individuals giving
health care
to each other in a family context would appear to have solid
scriptural support.
Haggerty is one of many whose studies have shown that persons under stress have
a higher risk of disease. He suggests that clinicians may become more effective
in preventing the harmful potentials of stress by involving
supportive institutions
beyond the primary family: the extended family, peer groups, religious groups.
The assumption behind such a proposal is that man is a social
creature who needs
complex and supportive interaction with groups. Without it, he gets sick, just
as an infant deprived of love tends to die.26
I would like to conclude with two quotations from
Canon Max Warren's book entitled The Christian Imperative:27
The fundamental sicknesses of men have always been sicknesses of the spirit and the mind. Never, perhaps,
was this more obviously so than today . Only a healing which makes a man whole and integrates him with his fellows in a true community, living in a right relationship with God and with the good earth which God has given man, only such a healing is adequate to the imperative 'go heal.' For this reason the Church must not imagine that it can relegate the responsibilities of its healing mission to a representative company of physicians and nurses, surgeons and anesthetists, pathologists and dispensers.
The . . . hospital must he seen as an integral part of a common task in which Church and school and farm are seen, not as the possibly attractive agencies for the employment of those with no skill in healing, but as the actual points at which most of the healing is done, the front line of the attack an human need. To these, the real centers of healing, the hospital will be related as a source of inspiration, a school of technical knowledge, a resort for such eases as demand specialized skill, but not as being itself the center of healing.
REFERENCES
1Wade, N. "Thomas S. Kuhn: Revolutionary Theorist .of
Science." Science
197, 143-145, July 8, 1977.
2Dubns, Rene. Mirage of Health. New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1961, pp.
30-31.
3McNerney, Walter J. "Health Care Reforms-The Myths and Realities."
Am. I. Public Health 61, 222-232, February 1971.
4Thomas, Lewis. "Aspects of Biomedical Science Policy." An
Occasional Paper of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of
Sciences, 1972,
p. 10.
5Psalm 90:10 (AV)
6Thoinas, op. cit., p. 9.
7Ibid.
8Engel, George L. "The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge
for Biomedicine."
Science 196, 129-136, April 8, 1977.
9Duff, R. and Hollingshead, A. B. Sickness and Society, New York:
Harper and Row,
1968.
10Engel, op. cit.
1lDubus, op. cit., p. 214.
12Duhos, Rene. Man Adapting. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1965, p. svii.
l3Clark, D. W., in Preventive Medicine. Clark, D. W. and MacMahon, B., editors.
New York: Little Brown and Company, 1967, p. 3.
14Ilhch, Ivan. Medical Nemesis. New York: Random House, 1976.
15Zola, I, K, "Medicine as an Institution of Social Control" in
Cox, C. and Mead, A., Eds. A Sociology of Medical Practice. London: Collier-MacMillan, 1975.
16I'homas, L. op. cit., p. 11.
17Scrimshaw, Nevin. "Ecologic Factors Determining Nutritional
State and Food
Use." In Alternatives for Balancing World Food Production Needs.
Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University Press, 1967, pp. 35-50.
18Rosa, Franz W. "The Interaction of Breast Feeding and Family Planning in
the Americas." (mimeographed).
19 See Leviticus, chapters 13 and 14.
20Craven, J. and Wald, F. "Hospice Care for Dying Patients."
Am. J. Nurs., Oct. 1975.
2lFrankel, V. Man's Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square
Press, 1959.
22Levin, L.; Katz, A. H.; and Hulst, Eds. Self Care: Lay Initiatives in Health. New York: Prodist, 1976.
23Cousins, Norman. "Anatomy of an Illness (As Perceived by the
Patient.)"
New England J, Med. 295, 1458-1463, Dec. 23, 1976.
14Pratt, Lois. "Changes in Health Care Ideology in Relation to Self-Care
by Families," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Public
Health Assoc., Miami Beach, Oct. 19, 1976.
25Dnff, R. and Hollingshead, A., op. cit.
26llaggcrty, B. as reported in Behavior Today 7(42), 2, Nov. 1, 1976.
27Warren, Max. The Christian Imperative. New York: Charles
Scribner's
Sons, 1955,
pp. 8182.