Why Health Care Reform is Needed
Ingrid Naiman

To understand where we are in the
world of health today, we need to understand where we have been.
Depending on your belief system, disease has a very ancient history.
Since I'm a philosopher rather than a doctor, I would like to
speculate that our human bodies have evolved from subtle to dense
and that they are in the process of moving again towards subtle.
While this may not seem particularly relevant to disease, it
has everything in the world to do with the subject.
If the aura or auras are the mold
in which the physical body finds its shape, the conditions of
the physical would be much less consistent when the proportion
of subtle to dense is greater. However, as density increases,
it is necessary to use more powerful means to heal the maladies
of the body.

In earlier times, we are given to
understand that the aura was much more vigorous and creative
than today. However, as there was movement towards more physicality
and all the differentiations of that physicality, there was also
experimentation with the physicality, not all of it conducive
to health and well being. Disease occurred as a mechanism to
teach the nature of the imbalance so that individuals could correct
the disturbance before it became greater. Though there are always
those who see lessons as punishments, in my belief system, the
law of action and reactionkarmais as impersonal
as the law of gravity. A specific cause generates actions and
reactions; symptoms are therefore both reactions as well as clues
to the deeper nature of the causal imbalance. Healing must take
into account both the symptoms and the cause because if only
the symptoms are addressed, the cause will be unresolved.
All traditional systems of medicine
understood this, but they put different interpretations on their
knowledge. A humanitarian doctor who works without judgment simply
helps patients to discover the keys to health and does not assign
blame. He or she cooperates with the educational and instructive
aspects of karma and works to shift the problem at its
roots so that the cause can be neutralized. It is enough to neutralize
the cause because it will cease to generate actions and the inevitable
reactions to actions the moment there is stillness at the core.
What happens when judgment is intruded
into such an understanding is that blame becomes a second energy,
an aggravant if you will, that stimulates the imbalance as well
as a tendency on the part of the patient to react to the blame
by either becoming defensive or buying into the guilt. If one
sticks to neutral ground, then the disease is no more symbolic
of wrong doing or sin than an apple that falls to the ground
is guilty of breaking a tie with the tree. Gravity dictates that
the apple will fall when it detaches, but it detaches when the
time is ripe for it to do so. Likewise, while symptoms may help
to explain causes, they are the ripening of the fruits of our
actions and no more to be dreaded or feared than the original
action that bore the fruit.
This is important because whole cultures
and eras have arisen around the idea that the only reason people
suffer is that they have done something wrong and therefore deserve
to suffer. At no time was this notion more exaggerated than during
the Inquisition when compassionate means of relief were withheld
in order to allow patients to atone more fully for imagined sins.
For better or worse, this guilt-ridden
basis for medical understanding was displaced by the germ theory
of disease because, for the first time in Western civilizationwhich
is never separate from Western thoughtinvisible microorganisms
were blamed for all manner of disease. Moreover, as blame moved
from the individual to a more impersonal arena, the skills to
manage disease grew almost in direct proportion to the detachment
from blame. First, there were medicines, such as essential oils,
that destroyed the pathogens. Then came vaccines and sanitation,
then antibiotics and disinfectants, and now a full turn of the
spiral because super bugs that are antibiotic resistant have
become the Waterloo of institutional health care, accounting
for tens of thousands of deaths every year.
What we gained, however, was improved
hygiene, broadly based public health measures, and insurancebecause,
if the patient is not to blame for his illness, then someone
ought to pick up the bill. What we lost was a sense of individual
responsibility for maintaining one's own health as well as jurisdiction
over our own bodies because the moment someone else can mandate
health measures, one loses control over the most personal and
intimate part of our incarnate existence.

We lost much more. We lost a portion
of our curiosity and with it some of our awe of the unfathomable
Nature of the Universe. We lost piety and capacity to surrender
our knowledge and arrogance before the altar of God and submit
to the lessons. We lost access to the intuition and insight than
comes from asking the unanswerable questions: why? Why, God,
why me, why now? We put the burden of cure on the shoulders of
scientists who were too intellectual to ask the questions that
went beyond the precipices of human pursuit and into the Divine.
We lost faith in Divine miracles and looked for miracles in pills
and needles. Worst of all, we lost control over own processes.
The enormous crises in life that attend major illness became
objects for scientific management rather than psychological and
spiritual probing, and we fragmented into compartments that were
so disparate that we have to pay others to help us find our lost
selves. We pay specialists to determine our allergies because
we are so out of touch with ourselves that we do not even know
what is good and what is bad for us. If you think this is normal,
ask yourself if an orphaned deer would need to book an appointment
with a dermatologist before figuring out how to forage.
We have become so ludicrously addicted
to outside sources of information about ourselves that we have
to read books about food to know what is good for us, and we
have to submit to tests before finding out what makes our skin
creep and scalps tingle. We can't tell a karmic friend
from a karmic enemy because intensity obscures clarity;
and we can't see into others enough to know when they are telling
the truth and when they are lying. We are so beholden to others
to help us to know what will make us happy that we let Madison
Avenue experts decide which perfume and which car and which drug
will bestow the blessings we can't find on our own. So, instead
of germs, we are now discovering victim consciousness, and this
almost brings us full circle to the starting point and promises
a great new medicine for the 21st century.

Why? The answer is that in the beginning,
all experience was subjective. The Great Cause was masculine.
It was Intent moving through our beings and stirring us to movement.
In our innocence, some of our movements were not too skillful
so we bungled and generated the seeds for future learning. All
of us need to be in touch with our innocence, to become forgiving
and even warmly loving towards our youth and its follies, and
to move into harmony through conscious alignment with Original
Intent. This is the goal.
Illness often is and can be a great
friend because when it challenges our progress, we stop and assess
what we are doing and why. Illness can then become a tool of
realignment. The time of crisis brings with it the opportunity
for exploration, for developing understanding, for gaining insight,
for using that insight to reprogram life and to move into the
new, more enlightened life with inspiration, enthusiasm, and
light, most of all loving light.
Medicine that is isolated from psychology
and spirituality, that is impervious to the hidden realms of
the psyche and the energies of Cosmic Impulse and Plan, is barren
medicine. While it has certain capacities to catalyze and temporarily
adjust certain patterns, it cannot move beyond this role because
it is not equipped to function in the invisible world of meaning.
It regards the invisible as empty rather than complete; and it
further makes the mistake of confusing the real and the unreal
by mistaking the appearance for real and the invisible for unreal
whereas in reality the invisible is immortal and therefore much
more real and the appearance is ephemeral and destined to oblivion.
No adequate system of medicine can
be built upon oblivion. Likewise, no system of medicine can be
immortal if it fails to be inclusive. So, just as germs exist,
so does immunity. Just as symptoms appear, so do causes create
them. Just as no two people respond identically to the same medicines,
so no two people have the same karmic history or destiny
to fulfill.

What we are currently witnessing is
the rapid obsolescence of a system of medicine based on germ
theories. Let's call it 20th century germ theory medicine. It
is facing obsolescence for a number of reasons. First, the theory
only addressed apparent causes, not individual responses to those
causes. It neglected individuality, predisposition, immunity,
and resistance. Second, measures adopted to fight microorganisms
have begun to fail. There are two explanations for this. On the
one hand, it was never accepted by academia that the microorganisms
are themselves pleomorphic and almost infinitely adaptable; on
the other hand, excessive (and abusive) use of antibiotics has
given rise to resistance. Third, the intense focus on microbiology
operated at the expense of the dynamics that produce the circumstances
of health and disease so the rules of health and the management
of disease were never really understood by 20th century medicine.
Four, focus on infectious diseases neglected the personal component
of illness so there has been almost total failure to develop
adequate approaches to chronic diseases, most of which entail
more patient participation in the treatment and therefore tend
to change the doctor-patient relationship; and five, the endless
desire to be in control and to profit by one's control promises
to supplant 20th century with a new greed for patents on the "promising
new technologies" represented by genetic medicine.
If the 20th century began with great
promise for eliminating disease from the surface of the Earth,
the celebrations are over now because the diabolical forces of
evil have created a whole new rash of iatrogenic diseases, ranging
from viruses that have jumped species, such as HIV and the SV40
contaminant in the polio vaccine that is contributing to an epidemic
of lymphatic cancers to the mind-boggling and soul crippling
prospect of biological weapons to decimate the population of
the world.

There is more. As blame moved to control,
so also did reverence change to arrogance. Now, we have for the
first time in history a conflict between healing and medicine,
between natural medicine and scientific medicine, and between
faith and science. In the halls of ivy, it is unsophisticated
to predicate one's hope for a cure on a prayer or ceremony, on
an herb or elixir, or on energy and alignment rather than intervention.
Medicines that intervene are enormously profitable and politically
well-positioned, but they have become the source of the problems
that need cure. Our water is contaminated with growth hormones;
our food is laced with antibiotics; our DNA is mutated by poisons;
and now our world is threatened by epidemics engineered in the
minds of persons who work with science, not God.
Because of the nearly total failure
of modern medicine to manage chronic illnesses of all types:
diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's
and so on and on and on, I believe it is time to end the blind
unquestioning of science and ask whether it is leading us into
fulfillment or folly. For many reasons, I believe it is time
to liberalize medicine, restore it to its basic principles, and
allow freedom of choice. More regulations merely
support an obsolete system that has become unconscionably rich
without delivering on its promise of health. In the whole of
history, it has always been a mistake to freeze knowledge at
any particular level. It has always been a mistake to burn books
and persecute ideas. It has always been a mistake to regulate
at the level of the status quo unless total flexibility is built
in that enables newer and more worthy ideas to gain a foothold.
This is impossible in the present situation. Therefore, the "situation" should
be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up, leaving ample room
for diversity and growth.