
HOLISTIC MEDICINE
John Heron
Published with the title Humanistic Medicine in February 1978 by the British
Postgraduate Medical Federation, University of London, in
association with the Human Potential Research Project, University of
Surrey.
This paper develops ideas discussed at a workshop on
holistic medicine which I led at the University of Surrey in October
1977. I wish to thank participants in the workshop for their
contributions to the discussion.
CONTENTS
Current Approaches
Comments on Above from Workshop Participants
Two Kinds of Choice
Cartesian Foundation of Modern Medicine
Non-Cartesian Approach to Medicine
Critical Incident Analysis: Negative Experience of
Medical Attention
Rewarding Incident Analysis: Positive Experience of
Medical Attention
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Eschatological
Alienation
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Emotional Alienation
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Interpersonal
Alienation
Deprofessionalisation
Action-planning
References
Current Approaches
The Institute for the Study of Humanistic Medicine,
founded in 1972 in San Francisco, offers the following definition of
'humanistic medicine' (more recently referred to as 'holistic medicine'). I have restated it in my own terms, retaining the
meaning.
- Optimal healing often requires a whole person to person relation
between doctor and patient: the doctor is more than a technical
expert, the patient more than a locus of disease.
- Health involves a balanced interdependence of body, emotion,
mind, spirit, within a social context. Illness can best be
understood as a disturbance within this dynamic balance.
- Doctor and patient are in a relationship of co-operative
endeavour, one aim of which is to increase patient self-help in
healing and self-determination in living.
- Illness can provide the patient with an opportunity for personal
growth. The doctor can facilitate the patient to use the experience
of disease creatively to re-evaluate personal goals and values, to
reshape a life-style. In this sense the patient can be invited to
consider the "meaning" of his illness in relation to the immediate
context of his life and to his total personal history.
Comments on above from Workshop Participants
- The ISHM points omit social factors in disease, the effects of
social and political oppression.
- They also overlook an element of pure arbitrariness in disease
processes.
- Consumers collude with the prevailing mechanistic model. Society
gets the medical system it deserves/wants/legitimates.
- Our society applauds disease producing activities.
- Some consumers complain, but leave the onus for change on the
profession. Other consumers are active in promoting change.
- The concept of self-induced illness is entering the medical
journals.
Two Kinds of Choice
- There is conscious rational choice, and a degenerate, blind
quasi-automatic "choice", for example the child's "choice" of a
defence mechanism as a form of emotional and social survival. One
can choose in the rational sense to atop "choosing" in the blind,
compulsive and degenerative sense. Thus a person can choose to
dismantle and do without redundant defence mechanisms.
- Quite apart from obvious cases of hysterical conversion (of
mental distress into physical symptoms), is there some similar
degenerative sense in which a person "chooses" a disease? And can
thus learn to choose in the normal sense to abandon such a "choice"?
Biofeedback research is relevant here (see below).
Cartesian Foundation of Modern Medicine
Descartes' (1596 - 1650) philosophical dualism: the body
as a self-contained mechanistic system extended in space, the mind as
purely immaterial with no spatial properties, accessible by
introspection. This very influential philosophy set the backdrop for the
development of pathology, anatomy and clinical technology. Modern
medicine is still primarily Cartesian: the body as a self-contained
mechanistic system that is the locus of disease processes that have a
physical aetiology and that are to be resolved by chemical and
mechanical interventions. The patient's Cartesian ego is pushed aside
for the patient to get on with privately while the doctor gets on with
the technology of treating disease.
The Cartesian disease model has led to the development
of powerful and in some respects effective medical technology. But it
clearly has its limitations.
- It gives disease a purely physical meaning in terms of
basic medical sciences and does nothing to help the patient give
human meaning in terms of purposes and values to his illness (his experience of disease in the context of his life).
- So it tends to alienate the patient from his disease and his
body - he hands full responsibility for both of them over to the
medical technologist, and ceases to regard himself as significantly
self-determining in the healing process.
- It leads to the inappropriate application of the mechanistic
disease model - disease label, passive patient, expert-determined
physical interventions in his body - in many cases in primary care
where an educative psychosocial model would be more appropriate -
co-operative insight into an underlying human problem, with patient
self-help and self-determination.
- Disregarding the Cartesian ego to get on with treating the
Cartesian body can lead to interpersonal insensitivity and
incompetence, with patients complaining of brusqueness, offensive
autocracy, inadequate explanations.
- Cartesian philosophy is out of date. Although it provided a
powerful and historically relevant impetus for the development of
modern science (over against the Aristotelian-mediaeval world-view),
it never did work philosophically - how can a purely non-spatial
immaterial mind have any locus of interaction with the spatially
extended physical body?
Non-Cartesian Approach to Medicine
1. Non-Cartesian dualism offers a more fruitful
philosophical backdrop to the practice of modern medicine: persons are
not just bodies, but do have spatial presence.
- The conscious person is not the same as his body - to assert a
strict identity of person and body leads to all the difficulties of
radical materialism. The main difficulty is that meaning -
which is central to the experience of a person - can never be
identified with a physical state.
- But persons are what we meet in and through bodies. We don't
encounter a purely physical thing, the body, and then infer the
presence of a person. We encounter a person directly in his touch
and in his gaze, although not totally.
- Thus persons, as conscious intentional beings, are in some
important sense present in space, in and within their bodies.
Witness also biofeedback research, which breaks down the distinction
between voluntary and involuntary bodily processes; the potential
for intended personal influence on the body is possibly very much
greater than the traditional distinction has allowed. And the
corollary is that unintended (unconscious) personal and social
influence on the body is possibly very much greater than traditional
Cartesian medicine has allowed.
- Hence a generalized and revised multifactorial theory should be
given more aetiological scope than hitherto. Probably multiple
aetiology is relevant: seeing susceptibility to physical causes
(such as a virus) in psychosocial terms. There is also of course
sociosomatic theory: disease as the effect of social and political
interference and oppression. The theoretical problem is to
integrate mechanistic explanations of disease with psychosocial
explanations - rather than ruling either out in favour of the other.
See next section.
- The actual relationship between the two embodied persons of
doctor and patient has a healing potential as distinct from the
technology that the doctor applies. Touch, gaze, tone of voice,
relative position, the types of psychological intervention, the
changing interpersonal processes -all these may: have a direct
healing effect per se; help uncover relevant psychosocial factors;
facilitate patient insight, discovery of meaning in illness,
self-help, re-evaluation of life-style, self-determination, and so
on. Hence the importance of a doctor's interpersonal competence.
- A non-Cartesian dualism of the kind here outlined would imply
not only that the patient can give meaning to his illness and use it
as an opportunity for personal growth - important though this is -
but also that the patient can work directly on healing the disease
by self-help: diet, fasting, exercise, breathing techniques,
autogenic training and mental methods, biofeedback training, and so
on.
2. There are at least four major categories of
explanation of human behaviour and, I suggest, of its interruption and
breakdown by disease processes. In any given case, the challenge is to
know which category or categories to apply, and if more than one, what
weighting to give to each category, and what account of their dynamic
interaction. Furthermore, the application of the categories in diagnosis
is not necessarily the same as their application in treatment and/or
self-help: Something of primarily psychosocial origins may be resolved
by primarily mechanistic treatment, or vice versa.
- Mechanistic: explanation in terms of basic medical sciences, of
purely physical processes; treatment in terms of drugs, surgery,
physical equipment.
- Energetic or vitalistic: explanation in terms of energy
regulation (high energy, low energy, types of energy, balance or
imbalance of polar energies, energy flow, and so on); treatment in
terms of energy regulation, often involving training patient in
self-regulation, as in biofeedback, relaxation, autogenic therapy,
gymnastic exercises, and so on - with appropriate conceptual
modification. For "energy" read other words such as "arousal".
- Psychosocial: explanation in terms of the patient's
psychological state and history together with his social,
interpersonal situation, present and past; treatment in terms of
facilitating patient self-insight, catharsis, restructuring of
life-style and goal-setting, restructuring of social/occupational
situation, retraining in interpersonal relations, and so on.
- Transpersonal: explanation in terms of alienation from some
extensive mode of being that encompasses but is more comprehensive
than the personal (Cf. the Transcendent in Jaspers' Existentialism,
the Transpersonal Self in Assagioli's Psychosynthesis, Jung's
archetype of the Self, etc.); treatment in terms of facilitating
patient openness to the transpersonal dimension of being.
The challenge to a new theory of aetiology is that these
sorts of explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but may
interact and combine. One model of such interaction is that of a
part-whole hierarchy, in which the part is in some respects relatively
autonomous, but in other respects is functionally dependent on the
whole. Thus in some respects mechanistic explanations are
self-sufficient, in other respects their rationale derives from their
inclusion in energetic explanations, which in turn in some respects are
self-sufficient, yet in other respects derive their rationale from
psychosocial explanations and so on. What all this - or any other model
of multiple aetiology - would mean in practice we are far from knowing.
Well-balanced aetiologies, as also well-balanced treatments, represent a
very sophisticated future achievement.
Critical Incident Analysis: Negative Experience of
Medical Attention
Workshop participants, all practising health
professionals, were asked to share with each other incidents from their
personal experience as patients in which they were the recipients of
anti-human medical attention. The incidents were analyzed to yield the
following causes (which are not given in any special order).
- Quality of care interrupted by (i) pressure of work (ii)
expediency (iii) inappropriate bureaucracy.
- Clinical incompetence.
- Autocratic, non-consultative therapy; inadequate communication
from professional.
- Mechanistic insensitivity: inappropriate, anti-human,
unnecessary use of medical technology.
- Lack of empathy, care, concern.
- Obsequiousness from practitioner when patient is a fellow
professional.
Rewarding Incident Analysis: Positive Experience of
Medical Attention
Participants were asked to share with each other their
personal experience as patients of satisfying medical attention.
- Expression of human support through the professional's use of
touch, physical contact.
- Warm personal approach; warmth, personal courtesy.
- Supportive communication of medical information; intelligent,
adult communication.
- Clinical competence.
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Eschatological
Alienation
(eschatology: that part of theology which deals with
first and last things)
An historical and cultural phenomenon: society
legitimates the modern doctor to manage birth and death, but because of
his Cartesian approach, he does so in mechanistic terms. That is, he is
legitimated to manage these great human events purely as technical,
physical phenomena. The clinical management of birth and death tends to
exclude these events being conducted, at the same time, within a ritual
of human meaning, in which the emergence-of a person (birth) and the
departure of a person (death) is duly acknowledged. Clinical management
is alienated from human meaning.
For birth the ritual of meaning is conducted in the
phase immediately after birth - the reception of a highly sensitive,
vulnerable person into a new environment. For one method see the work of
Leboyer (1975), for one rationale see the work of Grof (1976) on LSD
therapy and perinatal matrices.
For death the ritual of meaning is conducted in the
longer period leading up to death, except of course in sudden and
unexpected death: orientation in feeling and thought to death, giving
retrospective meaning to one's life as a whole, putting one's legal,
financial and other affairs in order, dealing with unfinished emotional
business with friends and relatives, accepting and dealing with
separation anxiety. This can all be done outside the doctrinal auspices
of any particular creed. Thus the work of Grof (1972) with terminal
patients.
Future medical and para-medical education and
training can include the multi-disciplinary, teamwork approach to
combining clinical management with ritual of human meaning.
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Emotional Alienation
As well as the Cartesian tradition in medicine as such,
we also have to take into account the Aristotelian tradition in our
educational system as a whole, which applies the Aristotelian doctrine
of function: the prime differentium of the human being is intellect, and
the goal of education is the cultivation of intellectual excellence both
theoretical and applied. An ancillary use of intellect is to control and
regulate emotion. But there is no affective education as such, no
education of the emotions - higher education is exclusively concerned
with the cognitive, the theoretical and where relevant its technological
application.
With this exclusive educational focus on intellect and
the assumption that its incidental use is to control feeling, we get an
emotionally repressive society, with redundant and inappropriate control
of feeling - the repression of human distress feelings, the inability to
work with such feeling cathartically, and the inability to identify how
such denied feelings are acted out in all kinds of distorted behaviours
- many of which are codified as social and institutional norms.
Our educational system, especially higher education, is
crude and unsophisticated, underdeveloped, so far as working with
feelings is concerned. But a person well-educated in human feelings
would be able: (i) to control all kinds of feeling as and when
appropriate; (ii) to express authentic human feelings of affection,
love, delight, joy, valid anger, as and when appropriate, and without
disabling self-consciousness and embarrassment; (iii) to release
cathartically human distress feelings such as fear, grief, rage, in
appropriate times and places, in ways that are harmless and undisruptive
to self and others; (iv) to transmute tense emotion through art, ritual,
symbolic imagination, transpersonal work.
Trauma, disease, death stir up valid human distress
feelings of fear, grief and anger. Enlightened medical practice needs to
be able to acknowledge these other than by disregarding them, or
requiring the patient or relative to exercise repression and control.
There seem to be at least two sorts of acknowledgment required: (i) the
ability to see how denied and occluded distress from earlier years as
well as distress from current troubles, distorts behaviour - in patient,
in relative, and, of course, in the health professional; (ii) the
ability to be able to facilitate cathartic release, and consequent
self-insight, where appropriate, in patient and/or relative, and to
honour it when it occurs spontaneously.
An extension of 4 (i) is the willingness to be open to
the connection between denied and occluded distress feelings in the
patient and disease processes that may have a relatively self-sufficient
explanation at the mechanistic level. Psychodynamic processes here may
provide a higher-order rationale for the mechanistic.
An extension of 4 (ii) is the ability of the
professional to facilitate cathartic release in himself, to deal with
his own distress feelings, whether these feelings are generated by
professional exigencies or personal situations past or present.
Otherwise the professional can act out his own denied distress in
professional behaviour. Unfortunately at present in our Aristotelian
educational system, the health professional during undergraduate
training and subsequently, gets no assistance as part of the training
in dealing with the distress feelings generated by early encounter
with human disasters. To counteract this, co-counselling (a method that
combines self-direction and peer support) could usefully be included in
professional training, and thereafter become a regular adjunct to
professional and personal life. Thus personal development, consciously
taken in hand, becomes a correlate of professional development.
See also my Catharsis in Human Development,
Human Potential Research Project, University of Surrey, 1977.
Reciprocal Counselling, HPRP, University of Surrey, 1974.
Non-alienating Practice: Overcoming Interpersonal
Alienation
Undergraduate and postgraduate medical education
includes very little training in communicating skills, interpersonal
skills. Industry and commerce are well ahead in this field, using
sophisticated research and training methods (Rackham and Morgan, 1977).
"In our contemporary sick society, the psycho-social factors of our
patients' illnesses are becoming more frequently observed and demand the
use of skills which we have never been formally assisted to acquire"
(Byrne and Long, 1976). Studies show an average 35% of patients are
dissatisfied with doctor/patient communication, and some 44% fail to
follow medical advice given to them (Ley, 1976). Patients' associations
correspondence files are full of complaints about the quality of
doctor-patient relations.
The problem for doctors, as for any other professional
group untrained in interpersonal skills, is that they tend to use a
restricted repertoire of behaviours. The flexible use of a wide
repertoire of interpersonal behaviours requires the ability to
discriminate the repertoire; requires the opportunity to practise; and
above all requires feedback from observers, aided by video or audio
tapes of performance, for the individual to become aware of the
strengths and weaknesses of his untrained repertoire, and to become
aware of how effectively he is extending that repertoire by training.
All this involves quite sophisticated training methods.
The wider problem stems from the education doctors have
received: no training in how to work effectively with feelings in self
and others; the Cartesian bias toward focussing on organic disease and
physical treatments; lack of concern with how the patient gives human
meaning to his illness; a defensive and sceptical attitude to
psychosocial explanations and psychosocial treatments - which may
involve facilitative counselling skills; and as already mentioned, the
absence of any interpersonal skills training.
There are various approaches to such training. One is
that of descriptive behaviour analysis. A comprehensive range of
categories of specific verbal behaviour is derived from observing
doctors at work (e.g. by means of audio tapes of actual consultations),
and then used as a basis for training. The trainee brings to the course
tapes of his own consultations, these are analyzed in the light of the
previously derived categories of verbal behaviour; his behavioural
strengths and weaknesses are fed back to him; he chooses which new
behaviours he wishes to acquire; then uses training role-plays to build
up skills in these new behaviours (Byrne and Long, 1976).
Another related approach is that of prescriptive
behaviour analysis, which recommends categories of behaviour as a basis
for training. Thus my Six Category Intervention Analysis method
recommends that the doctor be able to move flexibly among the following
six fold repertoire of behaviours: prescriptive, informative,
confronting, cathartic (releasing abreaction), catalytic
(eliciting/drawing out patient feeling/information/insight/problem
solving), supportive. Each of these six categories subsumes a range of
more specific verbal and nonverbal behaviours.
The training sessions involve: (i) a series of
discrimination exercises to enable the trainee to identify the six
categories and their subspecies of behaviour; (ii) assessment of
individual behavioural strengths and weaknesses with respect to the six
categories, based on transcripts of actual professional behaviour, on
recollection, on role-plays within the course using video tapes; (iii)
practice by means of a variety of specially structured exercises to
build up trainee skills in his identified areas of weakness; (iv)
modeling for trainee practice, and feedback on trainee practice, are
important elements in the training. For details of this approach see
Heron, 1974, 1975, 1977.
For a discussion of the differences, and the
implications of these differences, between descriptive and prescriptive
behaviour analysis see the Introduction to my Behaviour Analysis in
Education and Training (Heron, 1977).
Other approaches to training have included the Baling
type of seminar (Balint and Norell, 1973); role-plays based on
Transactional Analysis from the work of Eric Berne (Berne, 1966) (for
application of TA concepts to the doctor/patient relationship see Browne
and Feeling (1976)); interview training on taking a history, using video
replay with feedback and discussion (Maguire and Rutter, 1976); the
well-researched method of Carkhuff (1969); and so on.
Carkhuff (1969) following the work of Rogers (1961),
picks out through his training and research studies the following
qualities of the effective person-to-person helper: empathy, respect and
warmth, genuineness, self-disclosure, ability to confront, immediacy
(ability and readiness to see what is going on in the helper/helpee
relationship), concreteness (the ability to get down to the helpee's
real issues and concerns). He maintains that skills in expressing and
using these qualities in a helping relationship can be acquired by
structured training programmes.
Deprofessionalisation
Professionalisation is the process whereby a minority
group in a society, through training, accreditation and often statutory
registration, acquire special skills and expertise, which, in the
extreme form, they are exclusively legitimated to practise on behalf of
the rest of society.
Deprofessionalisation is the process whereby this group
itself takes active steps to delegate (a) to ancillary professions and
(b) more basically, to the people themselves, some of its professional
expertise.
Extreme professionalisation, where all the skills of a
certain type can only by law be practised by the duly accredited
professional, can be regarded as a form of political oppression - in the
sense that a basic human right to self-determination is excessively
restricted. Hence the political case for deprofessionalisation.
Deprofessionalisation does not, in my view, mean a
profession totally dismantling itself. That would be absurd. It seems
reasonable to suppose that distribution of function, of specialist
skills, will always be part of a rational ordering of society. What it
does mean is that a profession is willing and able to encourage and
train people to be self-determining, to practise self-help in the more
intellectually and technically accessible areas of professional
practice. The profession, in other words, does not seek to create in the
public redundant dependency. It seeks a healthy balance between I'll
do it for you and Do it yourself. Medical
deprofessionalisation might involve the following:
- The doctor de-mystifies his professional role; doesn't use the
role as a defence to mislead, manipulate, distance the patient; he
closes the gap between the human person and the role, so that role
behaviour expresses his humanity, doesn't mask it.
- He delegates therapeutic responsibility to ancillary professions
where relevant (counsellor, gymnasts, relaxation therapist, social
workers, and so on); especially where these professionals have
special skills in training patients in self-help and
self-management.
- Where appropriate he encourages and facilitates patient
co-operation in identifying the problem and in planning a solution -
especially where psychosocial explanation of the problem is
relevant.
- He encourages and facilitates patient self-help and
self-determination in managing health and healing.
- He encourages and facilitates the formation of peer self-help
(mutual aid) groups of patients with similar problems.
- He encourages within the profession the development of self and
peer assessment in training and thereafter as a form of medical
audit, also self and peer accreditation; as distinct from forms of
assessment and accreditation practised unilaterally on trainees by
"authorities" within the profession.
- He makes greater use of patient views and patient feed-back in
managing his affairs both clinical and administrative. He may run a
health centre such that some measure of accountability to patients
is built into its organizational structure.
The complementary process of healthy professionalisation
might involve the following:
- Keeping up to date with latest advances within the profession.
- Keeping abreast of educational methods especially those that
enhance self-direction and peer group work in medical students; also
those relevant to facilitate patient self-help and mutual support
groups. This extends to include communication training, interactive
skills training, education as personal development.
- Improving grasp of management and organizational matters: team
building, organizational decision-making, consultative and
accountability structures, and so on.
- Increasing awareness of the philosophical and ethical
assumptions and implications of medical practice.
Action-planning
Each participant developed a personal action-plan for
introducing change toward a more holistic approach in his/her
professional work. Pairs fixed a date for telephone follow-up - an
opportunity to be accountable to self for how the plan is going.
REFERENCES
Institute for the Study of Humanistic Medicine, 3847
Twenty-First Street, San Francisco, California 94114.
BALINT, E., NORELL, J.S., Six Minutes for the
Patient, London, Tavistock, 1973.
BERNE, E., Games People Play, London, Andre
Deutsch, 1966.
BROWNE, K., FREELING, P., The Doctor-Patient
Relationship, London, Churchill Livingstone, 1976.
BYRNE, P.S., LONG, B.E.L., Doctors Talking to
Patients, London HMSO, 1976.
CARKHUFF, R.R., Helping and Human Relations, New
York, Holt Rinehart, Winston, 1969.
GROF, S., et al "LSD-Assisted Psychotherapy and the
Human Encounter with Death", Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 1972.
GROF, S., Realms of the Human Unconscious, New
York, Dutton, 1976.
HERON, J., Course for New Teachers in General
Practice II, Human Potential Research Project, University of Surrey,
1974.
HERON, J., Reciprocal Counselling Manual,
University of Surrey, 1974.
HERON, J., Six Category Intervention Analysis,
Human Potential Research Project, University of Surrey, 1975.
HERON, J., Behaviour Analysis in Education and
Training, British Postgraduate Medical Federation, University of
London, 1977.
HERON, J., Catharsis in Human Development,
University of Surrey, 1977.
LEBOYER, F., Birth Without Violence, London, Wildwood
House, 1975.
LEY, P., "Towards Better Doctor-Patient Communication",
in A.E. BENNETT (ed), Communication Between Doctors and Patients,
London, Oxford University Press, 1976.
MAGUIRE, P., RUTTER, D., "Training Medical Students
to Communicate" in A.E. BENNETT (ed), Communication Between Doctors
and Patients, London, Oxford University Press, 1976.
RACKHAM, R., MORGAN T., Behaviour Analysis in
Training, London, McGraw-Hill, 1977.
ROGERS, C.R., On Becoming a Person, London,
Constable, 1961.
Back to Practitioner papers