Skip to main content

The merits of Prince Charles' approach to health and wellbeing

Prince Charles has been at it again. This time he has written an article published in the current Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (JRSM) in which he advocates an "integrated approach to medicine and health."

Prince Charles defines an 'integrated approach' as being "an approach to care of the patient which includes mind, body and spirit and which maximizes the potential of conventional, lifestyle and complementary approaches in the process of healing."

Whilst I might disagree with him on some of the detail, and we certainly wouldn't agree on some alternative medicines such as homoeopathy, nevertheless I am in complete agreement with the core thrust of his argument.

A distinguishing feature of modern medicine is that it is 'evidence based'. This is as it should be. Patient trust requires that medical practise and treatments are based on knowledge and some kind of fundamental and tested principles. But for too long medical science has been driven by a reductionist approach.  It has tended to view the human body as an aggregate of mechanisms rather than an integrative process, and whilst this reductionism has sought answers and causality at the molecular level, medicine has tended to follow suit. Researchers working in the minutiae of their disciplines rarely cross boundaries, and increasingly they seek answers at the level of the gene.

And the word 'level' is a problem too because it expresses an idea of layered causality. The top layers are 'caused' by activity in the layer below them; a layered hierarchy where the 'ultimate' cause of what happens at the 'top' layer is to be found at the bottom layer. It is a 'bottom up' approach; genes, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems, and the final layer, the body.

It expresses itself in medicine too. In medicine we tend to look for cause and effect in clearly layered terms. Many effects we regard as 'symptoms'. Better to treat the cause rather than the symptoms, although it is often symptoms which not only cause discomfort but can also be lethal. It is as if there is an 'ultimate' cause, a 'faulty gene'. If we find that then we can treat it with targeted drugs.  Indeed some suggest that this will be the ultimate revolution in developing new treatments. The human genome project is based on just this idea of layered, hierarchical and 'bottom up' gene-centred causality. But not only has the gene centred view influenced biology and biomedicine; it has also influenced social sciences, society and politics.

Modern politics tends to view society as, at best, an aggregate of self-motivated or self-interested individuals. It reached its peak in Mrs Thatcher as prime minister musing that there was 'no such thing as society'. It rather misses the point; and it misses the point precisely because it doesn't look for it. The gene-centred view rather sees humans, and any other organism, as vehicles at the behest of genes; a view advocated by Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene.

This view has been beautifully turned on its head by the distinguished biomedical scientist Denis Noble in his book The Music of Life;  and the 'central dogma' has been challenged in a recent lecture, 'Rocking the foundations of biology',  which can be viewed on Voices from Oxford. Denis Noble is no off the rails scientist. He is president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences and distinguished in his field of modelling how the heart works.

What Prince Charles advocates is patient-centred healing. We have indeed often lost sight of the process of healing and the personal aspects that can enhance it. This is not to dismiss the pharmacology but to consider what process within and without the body  make such treatments work better. Prince Charles puts it thus:

"One senior professional said to me that what seems to go missing all too easily is the art of thoroughly understanding the patient's narrative. He said that we need to equip our health professionals with skills (and a desire) to listen and honour what is being said, and – importantly – what is not said to them."

I doubt many medical professionals would disagree. The problem is finding the resources and time. Modern medicine shouldn't be about simply finding magic bullets. We would be very disappointed. They are very rare.  We need a different set of research questions and new goals, and one that considers how our social and environmental being affects our body, heart and mind. We need each other and we need to understand why and how.

Developmental science is teaching us that many manifestations of disease in later life have origins in the nutritional environment particularly during development. Health, well-being and equality matter in determining the epidemiology of disease. Inequality is a broader cause of disease than any 'faulty gene'. 

Holistic, yes; but it isn't mad.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As