 | ||
|
♦ Home
Part I: Ayurveda ♦ Introduction & History ♦ Indian Cosmology ♦ The Human Body ♦ Health & Sickness Part II: Ayurvedic Herbalism ♦ Humans & Plants ♦ Food Energies ♦ Plant Classification ♦ Herbal Preparations ♦ Herbal Usage ♦ Common Herbs Part III: Future of Ayurveda ♦ Limits to Ayurveda ♦ Ayurveda-Western Medicine Comparison ♦ Ayurveda as CAM ♦ Conclusion |
Limits to AyurvedaAyurveda is widely successful at preventing and curing most diseases in India mainly because it is the official and a popular medicinal system. A lot of research and experience in Ayurvedic practices exist in India. India has been aggressively doing research on Ayurveda from a scientific perspective since 1969 (1). But Ayurveda has many limits as an effective medicine in the U.S. or, rather, the U.S. presents many barriers for Ayurveda to become an effective medicine. Due to the American emphasis on allopathic medicine, Ayurveda often takes the minor role of alternative medicine. This section is an exploration of the main limits that Ayurveda has in the context of the American medical field. Ayurveda, in general, has two kinds of limitations. The first kind is inherent limitations due to the nature of the practices and philosophies. The second kind is limitations caused by the social infrastructure of the context in which Ayurveda exists and this includes government, education, society, and a competing medical system. Inherent LimitationsHolistic Care vs. Immediate CureAyurveda’s holistic approach necessarily implies that treatments take longer time to work on the body and the efficacy of the treatment is significantly diluted. Ayurveda is as much a preventative medicine as it is a curative one. Thus, treatments are often made with more emphasis placed on preventing illness and maintaining health over the long run than on curing the immediate illness. This causes Ayurvedic treatments to take longer time in having an effect on the body. A holistic approach dilutes the power of the treatment because treatments are made to cure in a non-specific, healing fashion than in a specific, curing fashion. One can easily see this effect in the making of herbal compounds. Herbs used for treatment are always given in compounds that contain other herbs and not given singly by themselves. This is done to affect all aspects of an illness (ex. A treatment targeting flu also targets the cough, phlegm, and fever that come with the flu.) but also to reduce the herbs’ side-effects. But this necessarily dilutes the overall effectiveness of the treatment in curing an illness. This becomes a severe limitation when trying to cure diseases and illnesses such as cancer, tumors, AIDS, paralysis, and large-scale physical injury. Ayurveda has no treatment that is adequate in scale (ex. surgery vs. herbal cures) or power that can address these kinds of diseases. In this situation, modern medicine is effective because of its focus on technology and targeting of specific agents of disease (2). Unsafe Treatments Ayurvedic treatments frequently contain uncommon herbs, minerals, and metals that are toxic to people. In the ancient past, Ayurvedic practitioners had enough knowledge and experience to prescribe the correct dosage, combinations, and time of consumption to provide safe treatments for patients. In the U.S. currently, no such foundation exists for any Ayurvedic practitioner. One notorious example of unsafe Ayurvedic treatments is metal poisoning. Ayurveda often incorporates the use of such metals as lead, arsenic, and mercury in their treatments. People who had taken such metal-containing treatments have often fallen more ill and even had to be hospitalized. A research study published by the Journal for the American Medical Association revealed that 20% of Ayurvedic treatments prepared in South Asia to be sold in the U.S. contained lead, arsenic, and mercury at levels high above U.S. safety standards (3). Scarce Clinical Studies The lack of appropriate clinical studies of Ayurvedic treatments is heavily criticized by Western physicians. Western physicians and medical scientists claim that very few clinical studies exist and those that do exist show, at best, questionable results. Their main concern against Ayurveda is that its reliance on pure observation, experimentation, and philosophical emphasis on individualizing treatments (i.e. making different treatments for different people for the same disease) create inconsistency and unreliable data on the efficacy of the treatments (4). Ayurvedic treatments cannot be objectified or standardized because of this issue. Although Ayurveda’s strength comes from the fact that it is a highly individualized form of medicine, this is a disadvantage in the context of the U.S. Limitations Due to Social InfrastructureGovernment Oversight and ResistanceThe federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have categorized Ayurveda as a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). While this act expresses the receptivity of the government and a national medical association to Ayurveda, it also implies that Ayurveda will be subject to a much more intensive empirical study than the already accepted allopathic medicine. The FDA and NIH are reluctant to allow Ayurveda to be practiced freely before having done an extensive amount of research on it. While this is expected and understandable, such intensive clinical study will ultimately devalue the spiritual component of Ayurveda leaving it to its bare physical treatments. Ayurveda, without its spiritual component, is not complete and is less effective (5). Education Although increasing, the multi-dimensional aspects of health such as having strong social connections, expressing emotions freely, living in a clean environment and other factors that do not merely pertain to physical health have not been properly educated. People still believe that a healthy body is a healthy person and do not readily believe that psychological, emotional, and spiritual imbalances have their own health illnesses. U.S. society takes a reductionist approach to medicine and places enormous value on the chemical components on medicine and how they affect the physical body (6). Thus, people are frequently hostile to spiritual rationales behind holistic systems of medicine such as Ayurveda and Ayurveda is often received as an archaic medicine that has no place in modern society. Society American society is a consumerist society that values technology and instant gratification of desires. Americans desire easy solutions that they do not have to work at or work for and that have been created by someone else. This can be seen by people’s dependence on drugs to cure many illnesses that are normally cured easily by time, good diet, and exercise. Ayurveda, as a philosophy on a healthy way of living, emphasizes accountability for one’s own health. It requires lifestyle changes, diet changes, and self-reflection to achieve full health (7). American society, because of this, is generally opposed to Ayurveda. There are individuals, however, that do value Ayurveda for its self-disciplinary focus. Competing Medical System The U.S. already has an allopathic medical system in place that depends on technology, surgery, and chemicals. Ayurveda, as an emerging medicine labeled as CAM, has to compete for resources and followers. Western-trained physicians are not wholly supported of Ayurveda because of the lack of empirical study on its practices and thus discourage their patients from receiving Ayurvedic treatments. In the U.S., there are only about 20 “colleges” and institutions that research, practice, and educate on Ayurveda as compared to conventional medical institutions that exist at much higher numbers (8). Even within these 20 colleges and institutions, only Ayuverdic therapies such as massage, herbal treatments, and dietary changes are taught . Ayurveda is comprised of much more than those three practices. References: 1. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. “What is Ayurvedic Medicine?- Does Ayurveda Work?” http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/. March 23, 2006. (Accessed: December 3, 2006). 2. Lim, Daniel. “Interview with Kasey Cox, an Ayurvedic practitioner.” November 13, 2006. 3. Wikipedia.com. “Ayurveda- Scientific Criticism of Ayurveda”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#_note-6. December 4, 2006. (Accessed: December 4, 2006). 4. Ibid. 5. Mishra, Lakshmi Chandra. Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies. Circ Press. 2004. Pg. 31-32. 6. HolisticHealthTopics.com. “Holistic or Reductionist?” http://www.holistichealthtopics.com/HMG/holistic.html. 2000. (Accessed: December 4, 2006). 7. Tiwari, Maya. Ayurveda: A Life of Balance. Healing Arts: Rochester Vermont. 1995. Pg. 8. 8. Mishra, Lakshmi Chandra. “Introduction- Educational Standards.” Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies. Circ Press. 2004. |
|
This website was created by Daniel Lim as a research project for:
HCOL 195-C: Ethnobotany- An Ecological Economics Perspective, Fall 2006
Professor Marta Ceroni
University of Vermont