Glorification of Violence in Medicine

One day I found a greeting card for someone who had gotten diagnosed with cancer. It said something like it looks like cancer has found its match. The message made me envision a boxing ring with cancer on one side and the patient on the other side. The big mean cancer may have killed many people, but it has met its match with this patient, or so was the intended message of the card to the recipient.

Something about this card’s message offended me. It promoted the all-too-ubiquitous fighting-a-battle metaphor that we associate so much with cancer. Here, I am going to explain why I believe that when it comes to dealing with a serious disease, the fighter mindset is wrong.

A major issue with the fighter mindset is that it glorifies violence. In order to “fight”, you need an adversary. This adversary does not need to be a person or any living being for that matter, but you still need something to serve as your adversary. Otherwise, there is nothing for you to fight against.

Once you have defined your adversary, your goal is to kill and/or destroy this adversary. When your target is destroyed, then you have won.

The fighter and the problem solver

Let us say that you are a handyman and you are trying to deal with a leaky faucet in your bathtub. If you were to adopt the fighter mindset, then your adversary would have to be the faucet leak. As a fighter, you intend to destroy your adversary. So how do you destroy a faucet leak? Well, maybe you can take a thick towel and wrap it around that faucet. As you wrap the towel around the faucet, you imagine yourself suffocating your enemy to death. You can only hope that the towel will remain securely wrapped around the faucet and be able to prevent any additional water from coming out.

Another battle tactic you may employ against this faucet leak would be to destroy the faucet altogether. After all, you cannot have a leaky faucet if you do not have any faucet at all. As you can see, however, destroying the faucet is a really bad idea when it comes to fixing a faucet leak.

A more appropriate mindset for dealing with a faucet leak is a problem solver mindset, not a fighter mindset. While the fighter aims to destroy an adversary, the problem solver aims to find a solution to a problem.

When we try to find a solution to a problem, our initial inclination would be to determine the cause of the problem. For example, leaky faucets are most commonly caused by a worn-out washer or gasket, a loose O ring or corrosion in a valve. When we spot the cause of the faucet leakage problem, a solution to the problem becomes easy and inexpensive. You can solve the problem, and without having to destroy anything.

The glorification of violence in medicine

When we think of violence, medicine is not the first thing that comes to mind. Is not medicine supposed to be what we turn to when we want to recover from injuries that are caused by violence? Nonetheless, modern medicine often uses very violent methods in the treatment of serious diseases. Take cancer for instance. The three types of treatment for cancer are surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, which correspond respectively to cut, poison and burn.

Cutting, poisoning and burning are all violent. Surgery involves cutting out tissue, and sometimes involves the removal of whole body parts (think of destroying the faucet). Chemotherapy involves immersing the body’s internal organs in poisonous chemicals that are meant to kill cells, specifically cancer cells. Radiation therapy involves exposing the body’s tissue to high-intensity radiation, which is intended to cause cell damage. These therapies are supposed to kill cancer cells, but they tend to kill a lot of healthy cells, too. This is why people who go through cancer treatments suffer so much and get so sick.

An article entitled No More Militaristic and Violent Language in Medicine discusses the excessive use of military language in medicine. When it comes to serious diseases such as cancer, the fighter mindset can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Considering the horrific side effects that cancer treatments cause, overtreatment is quite harmful. Even the “journey” metaphor is not always good, since journeys can sometimes lead to horrifying destinations.

The superior efficacy of non-violent approaches to cancer treatment

When we have a problem solver mindset in dealing with cancer, we will be more likely to consider why our cancer occurred in the first place. Are there toxins in our environment that we are exposing ourselves to on a regular basis? Are we getting enough nutrition in our diet? Are we too stressed out all the time? Answering these questions is important when it comes to solving our cancer problem.

Fortunately, there are some studies in the science literature that demonstrate the superior efficacy of nutrition-based therapies for cancer. A study by Hildenbrand and colleagues compared 5-year survival rates of patients on Gerson therapy to survival rates found in the medical literature. The Gerson therapy diet was lactovegetarian, low sodium, low fat, low protein, and involved hourly consumption of fruit and vegetable juices, and coffee enemas as needed for pain. Of the 153 patients enrolled in the study, 14 patients had stage I and II melanoma (no cancer spreading), 35 patients had stage III melanoma (regional cancer spreading) and 104 patients had stage IV melanoma (cancer spreading to distant organs).

Of the stage I and II cancer patients who underwent the nutrition-based Gerson therapy, 100% were alive after 5 years compared to 79% who underwent conventional (violence-based) therapy. Of the stage III patients who underwent the nutrition-based therapy, 82% were alive after 5 years compared to 39% who underwent conventional therapies at another selected cancer center (Fachklinik Hornheide). Of the stage IV patients who underwent the nutrition-based Gerson therapy, 70% were alive after 5 years compared to 41% who underwent conventional therapies at the Fachklinik Hornheide cancer center. One can presume that the dietary approach investigated here is minimally toxic, and presumably less toxic than the average American diet.

A problem solver may also consider looking at what kind of an environment in the body allows cancer to grow. For example, cancer tends to grow in a hypoxic (low oxygen) environment. Healthy cells, on the other hand, thrive in an oxygen-rich environment. Cancer cells also need a more acidic environment while healthy cells need a slightly alkaline environment. While the human body can easily handle excessive alkalinity, it cannot as easily handle excessive acidity. Therefore, a problem solver would try to make the body of a cancer patient more alkaline and oxygen rich.

A study by Hatfield and colleagues showed that when mice with cancer were exposed to 60% ambient oxygen, the death rate was 0% after 40 days of tumor growth, compared to a 100% death rate for the untreated mice with the same cancer.

What if a cancer patient simply switched to a much healthier lifestyle? How effective would this be in treating cancer that is already there? Such a question was investigated in a study by Ornish and colleagues, which showed improvements in the prognosis of prostate cancer patients following intensive lifestyle changes compared to prostate cancer patients following conventional (violence-based) guidelines. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) was used as a marker to track disease progression. PSA was found to decrease in the experimental group (indicating disease reversal) and increase in the control group (indicating disease progression). The serum from the experimental group was found to inhibit cell growth by 70% (indicating increased resistance to cancer growth) compared to only 9% inhibition of cell growth in the control group. Generally, the higher the change in lifestyle, the lower the PSA was.

According to a follow-up study by Frattaroli and colleagues, of 49 prostate cancer patients following conventional violence-based treatments, 13 underwent radical prostatectomy within 2 years. Of the 43 prostate cancer patients following intensive lifestyle changes, only 2 underwent radical prostatectomy at 2-year follow-up. These results indicate that when prostate cancer patients follow intensive lifestyle changes instead of conventional cancer therapies, their chances of having to get the prostate removed decrease dramatically.

When you sit down and eat your raw salads, and drink your fruit/vegetable juices, do you feel like you are fighting a battle on a battlefield against some great and powerful foe? I doubt it. However, if you are sitting in a chair and being fed poisonous chemicals from an IV bag that are meant to kill cancer cells, and when you endure those side effects, I suppose you would feel like you are fighting a great battle. It just so happens that when it comes to treating cancer, “fighting” is not necessary as is shown in the science literature.

The hypothetical story of Jen and Jill

Jen and Jill both get diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer cancer. They have similar past health histories, but they have two different mindsets. Jen has the fighter mindset while Jill has the problem solver mindset. “I am going to fight this thing!” Jen says to herself. She is ready to go out into the battlefield like a brave soldier, ready to take on the big enemy. Jill, on the other hand, is pondering how to solve this cancer problem. Certainly genes play some role, but what about other factors?

Because the cancer has already spread to other parts of the body, Jen has decided to follow the doctor’s recommendations to undergo chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She loses all of her hair, and experiences numerous other serious side effects. Because there is so much cancer in the colon, Jen undergoes surgery to get the colon removed, and now has to use an ileostomy bag for the rest of her life. She keeps fighting, though.

Jill does some reading, and finds that according to demographic studies, colon cancer is linked to meat consumption, and perhaps also to dairy consumption. Many information sources also state that cancer risk is reduced when people eat more fruits, vegetables and complex carbohydrates. Although Jill already has cancer, she figures she could still reduce the risk of the cancer continuing to spread by eating a lot of fruits and vegetables. Over time, she starts to follow a predominantly raw food diet. Jill also knows that her job has been pretty stressful. Jill figures that maybe her many years working in her stressful job contributed to her risk for cancer, so she quits her job and decides to opt for a less stressful job.

Jill considers trying chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She does some reading and finds out that these therapies are known for suppressing the immune system. While it is meant to kill cancer cells, it also kills healthy cells and greatly weakens the body. Jill thinks that such treatments do not seem to be conducive to healing, and decides to only go on these treatments when other methods for addressing the underlying cause do not work.

Back to Jen. After going through rounds of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, Jen is told that there are no more detectable tumors in her body. She is now in remission. Great! Her fighting has paid off.

Meanwhile, Jill has found that the raw foods diet that is high in fruits and vegetables has paid off. The cancer has stopped spreading, and the tumors are shrinking. Jill also is feeling pretty good because of all of the nutrition she is getting. Jill never would have been motivated to eat this healthy if not for the cancer. This cancer may have been a blessing in disguise after all. Furthermore, unlike many other cancer patients, Jill has not lost any hair and has not suffered from the horrific side effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Back to Jen. Jen thought that she was in the clear, but a year or so later the cancer has returned. This time, the tumors are resistant to the chemotherapy treatments that Jen did before. Jen continues to fight, however. She decides to enter into some clinical trials on experimental drugs. These experimental drugs cause grave side effects. At some point, Jen’s body cannot handle the trauma anymore and Jen dies with an infection. As Jen’s friends and family gather at the funeral, they speak highly of Jen, and how much of a great fighter she was. Indeed, she fought all the way to the end.

Back to Jill. Because Jill addressed the environmental causes of her cancer, her cancer is not as likely to return. Also, because Jill has not opted for the conventional cancer therapies (why would she? her special diet worked), she is not immunocompromised. Therefore, her immune system remains able to adequately fight off not only infections, but also cancer cells.

Note: the story of Jen and Jill is only hypothetical. Not everyone who does what Jen did will have the same horrible fate, and not everyone who does what Jill did will have the same success. The point of this story is to illustrate how different the outcomes can be when we adopt the fighter mindset versus the problem solver mindset. When we adopt the fighter mindset, we are setting ourselves up for a lot of trauma to the body as the body is made into a battleground.

Why would the licensed medical professionals promote violent treatment methods?

Doctors and nurses can be nice people who care about their patients, but the health care industry is not designed to restore people to good health. It is designed to be a money-making business. Think about it. How many times in your life has one of your doctors given you useful advice about living a healthy lifestyle? When you went to the doctor with a health issue, how often does the doctor present to you anything besides drugs and medical procedures?

A 2010 documentary entitled Cancer: The Forbidden Cures discusses the numerous attempts made by the cancer industry to prevent minimally toxic and effective cancer treatments from being made available to patients. Why would they do this? The reason is that these treatments are a threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

The fighter mindset makes money because a fighter mentality can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In contrast, many of the non-violent methods of treatment are so effective that they are a threat to business. The pharmaceutical companies do not make money when patients adopt intensive lifestyle changes. They especially lose out on profit when these intensive lifestyle changes are effective in treating cancer that is already there.

Can you adopt both the fighter and problem solver approaches?

One may ask why can’t I be a fighter and a problem solver? Could we combine the fighter mindset and problem solver mindset so that we can reap the benefits of both?

My answer to this is that our heads only have so much space, and any head space we devote to being a fighter will leave less head space available for problem solving. Problem solvers and fighters have two different goals. The more focus we place on one goal, the less focus we will be able to place on the other goal.

Understandably, some cancer patients like to adopt both lifestyle changes and conventional cancer treatments. I am not a physician, but I believe that in some cases, there is no benefit to undergoing conventional cancer therapies at all. This article discusses how conventional cancer treatments are often ineffective, and sometimes doing nothing has a higher success rate.

Dr. Otis Brawley, then Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, stated that “We’re finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point, that can make some treatments look good that aren’t doing anything. Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won’t progress, the only option is to treat everyone”. Chemotherapy, on the other hand, was found to have a response rate of only 2-4% according to Dr. Ralph Moss, while alternative therapies have life-long cure rates of over 30%.

Summary

If I had a serious disease, and someone called me a fighter, I would not take that as a compliment. It does not mean that I am smart when it comes to going about solving the problem. It does not even mean that I am doing the right thing. It just means that I am willing to go through some large amount of adversity to get to some goal. The means of getting to the goal may still be misguided. The goal itself may not even be appropriate.

The fighter mindset can be counterproductive because it generally aims to kill and/or destroy something, and killing/destroying does not necessarily fix the underlying problem.