What is the Natural Health Model and ...
How is It Different from the Medical Health Model?

 

Two models for health have co-existed over the past century–the Natural Health Model and the Medical Health Model. The Natural Health Model is the older of the two approaches as this model dates back many centuries. During the 1900's, however, the Medical Health Model established dominance to the point where an understanding of the Natural Health Model has been lost to most of Western society.

While our media tends to portray healthcare in the centuries prior to the 1900s as consisting of leeches and bloodletting, the truth is, a significant body of knowledge was developed in different areas of the world regarding herbs and energy medicine. This knowledge was acquired through a long history of trial and error but tends to be dismissed in Western cultures as unscientific.

We offer a summary of the two models below and invite your comments...

   
Natural Health Model
Medical Health Model
What creates disease? We create disease. How we deal with life, our lifestyle and exposure to environmental toxins over time leads to disease. Disease is often viewed as something that just happens to us--genetics and microbes dominate research into the causes of disease. Lifestyle is gaining acceptance as a factor.
How is the body viewed? All aspects of the individual--physical, emotional, mental & spiritual are recognized as affecting health. The body is seen as a whole. For example, if cancer erupts in one part of the body, it reflects a problem that involves the whole body. The body is viewed in parts. Specialists become experts for a disease or an area of the body–heart specialist, brain specialist, oncologist, etc. For example, if cancer erupts in one part of the body, as long as it is treated, it is not seen as a problem for the rest of the body.
How do you restore health? The goal is to learn how to create health before disease manifests. Once disease symptoms appear, radical cleansing therapies are more important than diagnosing a condition or disease. The body has the ability to heal itself if given the proper tools. The key to helping one person may not be the key that works for another, however all therapies, are a stepping stone to improving health. The goal is to diagnose disease as early as possible. Symptoms and tests are used in order to diagnose a condition or disease. The emphasis is on drugs, surgery and radiation as tools used to heal the body or to manage the symptoms. Therapies that work for one person's condition must be able to consistently work for others with the same condition.
What type of research is accepted? Creating health is a personal journey for each of us so we determine effectiveness by word-of-mouth, practitioner experience, testimonials, books, intuition, lectures, case studies and personal experience. Because everything we do creates health--rarely is it one therapy--the Medical Model for effectiveness cannot be applied. Therapies are designed to work with the body and although they tend to be safe, safety needs to be proven. Safety may be established through historical or empirical evidence. Formal double blind studies to prove safety and effectiveness are the only recognized research method. Effectiveness needs to be proven because a therapy must work consistently for a particular condition. Safety levels must be established as therapies used are often toxic to the body and can do harm. Studies also help to determine side-effects.
Who is the practitioner and what is their role? Practitioners acquire education or training in one or more natural health approaches. The role of the practitioner is determined by the individual--they may act as the authority, as a consultant or as a facilitator. Practitioners must qualify as a medical doctor. The doctor is the authority on what is needed to restore health and may specialize in a particular area of the body or in a particular disease.
What is the role of the individual? To recognize the role we play in creating health or creating disease. To seek out practitioners and therapies that help. Individuals are expected to follow the doctor's advice.
What is health? Health is having abundant energy--physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Health is a long-term process and commitment. Health is viewed as an absence of symptoms or diagnostic evidence.
How do governments view this model? Governments tend to view practitioners and suppliers as quacks who prey on the sick. They risk being charged with practicing medicine without a license or shut down. Individuals seeking assistance are seen as gullible and desperate victims and Medical Doctors who adopt the principles of the Natural Health Model risk losing their licenses. Governments tend to view the medical health model as the only legitimate approach to health care. As a result, this system tends to have total power and control over health care systems.
What are the questions we need to ask in order to find common ground?
  • Isn't it likely there are intelligent, caring health practitioners in both models? When practitioners in either model are not given credit for their effectiveness or are not respected for their approach to health, aren't we the ones to suffer?
  • Ask yourself: where does my freedom end and another's begin? If you choose to use one model of health over another, do you feel it is right and good that only your model be recognized and accepted? If you have the right to choose your model, shouldn't someone else have the right to choose a different model?
  • Do government agencies have our best interests at heart? If they do, why isn't their mandate to investigate and inform us about all health protocols? Why, instead do they spend their time regulating to enforce compliance with their rules? Perhaps, they sincerely believe we the people are gullible and need protecting... are you? Is this what you want?
  • Each drug is granted a patent. This means huge profits can be made. Most natural products cannot be patented. The profits, therefore, are not anywhere near the money made with drugs. Isn't it possible the profits of the pharmaceutical industry are used to influence bureaucrats within health regulatory agencies? Could these profits also be used to finance political campaigns in order to influence political decision–makers?
  • Both models help people and both have some potential to harm as well. Medical associations determine whom they will admit as members. Should government, however, allow medical associations to determine who can be a health practitioner? Is word-of-mouth as to who is effective in helping people to regain their health–and also who is not effective–a valid way to choose a health practitioner? Wouldn't you like the freedom to choose a health practitioner based on the experience of others such as a family member, a friend, a coworker or a neighbor?
  • Don't we deserve better? Wouldn't we all benefit in a world where both models are respected so we can have the best care that both models offer?

[ Home ] [ About Us ] [ Newsletters ] [ Our Products ] [ The Beck Protocol ] [ Researchers to Know ] [ Natural vs Medical ] [ Products we Recommend ] [ Links of Interest ] [ How to Order ]