Who knows just when certain masses & ulcers were first noted to be markers of an untimely end? Whenever that may have been, the universal horror of these dreaded signs surely led to the lobby that hatched The Expert Cure.
Ancient Burr Hole |
Why in heck do oncologists prescribe toxic therapies if an easier fix is truly available anyway? Why are they so sure that they’re the Good Guys? Even their clinical trials are fraught with possible side effects that they insist on detailing. Are they little more than a bunch of over-schooled sadists? Speaking for myself, I can see that telling patients only that which they wish to hear, using technology for uncharted indications, seeming pro-active or ”aggressive” in the face of severely limited benefits– these would all fatten my bank account, but… oh, well. If only embolization could eliminate my choke reflex…
OK, so I can’t say that mainstream medicine is the true fount of knowledge, much less of wisdom. (Didn’t the mainstream once proclaim that the world was flat?) Still, if I have to make sense of it all by subscribing to an underlying principle, the Scientific Method will just have to do.
OK, so I can’t say that mainstream medicine is the true fount of knowledge, much less of wisdom. (Didn’t the mainstream once proclaim that the world was flat?) Still, if I have to make sense of it all by subscribing to an underlying principle, the Scientific Method will just have to do.
Primum Non Nocere. Above all, do no harm. In Oncology, physician adherence to this dictum is critical but, I suspect, its Primum Utilis Esse that’s dead-on. “Above all, be useful.”