Life is such a complex business that get on with it some simplicity helps. One of the biggest determinants of life are health and mind.
There are alternative approaches to handling health, from pro-active care of health in a preventive way so that it does not deteriorate from its known standards; to the curative way. A good example of preventive health is Ayurveda. It emphasizes a healthy lifestyle rather than the treatment of aberrations like it is done in the case of Allopathic. Somewhere in between there are healthcare systems like Unani or Siddha, in India. All these systems of medicine flourish and have their own protagonists. Much of Ayurveda is based on extensive practices tested over not just centuries but millennia. It is a school of thought and is best understood by the testimony of literally millions upon millions of people who vouch for its efficacy. Notwithstanding that many ardent protagonists who want the attributes of the interventions first tested in laboratory conditions have doubts over what Ayurveda propagates, it does not bother them that in the ultimate results the Ayurvedic medicine has its own evidence as results. Its method of documentation is different from Allopathy. This methodological exclusivity is material because it impinges upon the general perception of the decision-makers many of whom hold the keys of institutional resources.
The above statement can be well understood by observing the rollout and play of governmental setups for promoting the concept of the ‘All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)’. Backed by an international system of medicine producers and those institutions investing in electrical and other kinds of equipment which can be used in desired surgical interventions, a type of Allopathy practice is considered the highest form of investment in health. The popularity and belief in the efficacy of the line of treatment AIIMS espouses is huge. All governments have fully supported, as would be expected, resource allocation to AIIMS. The number of AIIMS setups is large and more are due. There is nothing wrong with this.
Also read: Shift toward Evidence-Based Evaluations will Improve Review Accuracy
Perhaps a study would be in order to find out how much money has been invested in some of the Indian systems of medicine, research such as Ayurveda. It would also be worthwhile to consider how much investment has been made in alternative systems of medicine like Unani and related approaches of health care. There will be other contenders to be included in this analysis, which would include Naturopathy, Siddha and more.
The argument is simple; since health care is a universal and an inevitable need, some measures of equity in prioritization needs to be practiced in the governmental policy towards these respective approaches. One is not arguing against the present priorities given to certain types of health care. One is seeking to know the rationale of the choice.
Net as the demand for health care increases, one does, notice higher institutional support to the allopathic approach than other approaches. This may be, as already be suggested, valid yet, it would be better if the reason for this preference was more cogently thought through and more publicly displayed.
In a country like India, governmental priorities deeply impact public choices, and it becomes self-feeding cycle. Prima facie, there is nothing against this state of affairs either. However, it needs to be thought through more scientifically and carefully than has been the case so far, on several issues, in what is available in the public domain.
Certification, consumer grievance handling, and follow-up on deviations, if any, constitute the core of the matter. Some like to raise fingers on the efficacy of some of the Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, and Unani interventions, and sometimes an impression can be created that the whole system is full of aberrations. If that is so, no evidence of it has been produced on a scientific basis to support that conclusion. This needs corrections at the basic level of policy formulation.
Aberrationsarising out of a lack of care, inadequate monitoring, and worse have been found in all systems of medicine, including Allopathic. The recent feedback from the African subcontinent on the efficacy of certain medicines and drugs imported from India has been a disturbing case of how the handling of Allopathic interventions can go wrong.
There is an obvious case for taking a public view on these matters and avoiding operational actions based on mindsets not sufficiently rooted in sound scientific and business choices. The way forward in the health care business is obviously going to include a strong emphasis on a universal approach of data-based evidence systems and holistic policy thoughts.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
