The Health Care Provider

by Dr Patrick Quanten MD

We all want peace, prosperity, and justice. We want freedom. Sometimes we disagree over what the trade-off should be for freedom; but, still, we all want the good things for our fellow man. Where we disagree is how to bring all of that about. And this disagreement can be boiled down to just two viewpoints; the rest is dressing. Basically, a person either has an individualistic take on life, or he/she is a collectivist.

Edward Griffin describes the collectivist as one who believes that the group is the most important element of society; that all solutions to problems are better solved at the group level; that government is the solution because government is the ultimate group, bringing everybody together; that, when required, the individual must be sacrificed for the benefit of the group. The collectivist wants to protect people from suffering, starvation, poverty and injustice through a collective solution, a group action. The more complex the problem, the larger the group required to solve it, from local governments to global governments.

The individualist is more sceptical and sees governments as the creator of problems, not the solver. The individualist questions what constitutes "a group". It's just a word; you can't touch a group, you can't see a group. All you can touch and see are individuals, making up a group. The real substance of the group is the individual within it. Similar to a forest, which is made up of trees. The forest is a concept but doesn't actually exist beyond that. It is only a bunch of trees! So, if the individual is the essence of the group, it would be a great mistake to sacrifice the individual for the good of the group, as one would be eroding the core of the group itself.

Understanding these differences will help us to understand the fundamental gap between two sets of people, wanting essentially the same things but having totally different ways of achieving it. This will also help us to understand the evolutionary process which is taking place right now.

Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ drastically over what is the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities in this debate. Either, man's rights are intrinsic to his being; in other words, these rights are part of his/her birthright; or they are extrinsic, they are given to him afterwards.

If the human rights are extrinsic and given to us humans at some time during our lives, then the question arises: "Who gives us those rights?". All collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. Now, that is important! But equally important is the fact that if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. One cannot have one without the other.

Collectivist's Health Care

As our modern health care developed over the last one hundred or so years the momentum has certainly been with the authority. A small group of people have set rules, regulations and laws to be followed by a much larger group on the grounds of authority. The "we know best" authority is a prime example of a collectivist's point of view. Here we have the concern for people's welfare and health being taken care off by the government. In this framework, it is the government's task to provide the best possible care and information and to ensure everybody's health. There is no possible failure, as there is no other body or person who could deliver the required goods as it is believed that the government is the only possible provider.

Over the years, there has been an increasing number of rules and regulations put in place in an effort to try and achieve the said goal. If we consider general practice, we can appreciate that the "old-fashion" village GP, who knew his flock very well and intimately, has been replaced by a number of protocols that describe and ensure "good practice". Where as the local GP would decide which was the best route to follow for a particular patient in a particular situation, nowadays the GP is just required to follow the protocol which sets out what is best for all patients with a similar problem. In modern times, more and more computer programmes are introduced that follow these protocols and allow self-diagnosis and treatments. It is believed that the problem takes priority over the individual with the problem.

Similarly, local hospitals half a century ago would carry out medical procedures and give help to local people within the restrictions of budget, staffing and expertise available. These hospitals and facilities have been virtually wiped out because of the idea that all hospitals must provide the same type and standard of care as laid down by the rules of health care provision. This has culminated in the hospital league tables whereby hospitals are judged on their performance, not by asking the patients whether they are happy with the care they received, but by waiting lists, number of procedures done, bed turnover and equipment usage. The subsequently published league table will then show the "consumer" whether or not he/she is being treated right in their local hospital compared with the big city hospital. When the hospital "performs" well, it is assumed that patient care has improved. In other words, when the group is better off, the individual within the group must also be better.

Government measures the National Health's success on the amount of money injected into the NHS, the number of doctors and nurses employed, reduced waiting lists for primary care, consultant's appointments and surgical interventions and the number of patients treated. These all show the amount of effort that the authority is putting into delivering health care to the individual. It may strike you as odd that the success of a health care system is not measured by statistics showing the number of people needing doctor's advice, the number of people requiring hospital treatment, the total number of hospital days in a year, the total number of sick days taken by employees, the number of medicinal drugs required, etc. This is mainly because the idea, which is driving this kind of health care system, is that the more money is thrown at it, the higher the staffing levels and the greater the facilities provided, the better off the individual at the point of care delivery must be. When you believe that this system must be right in delivering the best goods to all of the people then being confronted with bad news such as mistakes, non-effectiveness or worse, damage, can only result in the belief that all this negativity is due to the fact that one has not provided enough money, personal and equipment. So, more of the same is done!

At best, one may want to look at alternative systems to gain more benefits but these will also have to be of the same nature, meaning the system will need to provide good health to all. One cannot allow anything that does not adheres to the basic rule, which says that the group has to provide for the individual. The government has given you the right to extensive health care and you must be assured that what you are getting is the very best, and nothing less. However, as the government has provided you with all of that, it of course sets the rules and you of course will obey them. There is no choice. Or, in the government's words: "if you disobey, you endanger the whole community", a slogan used in diverse arguments such as refusing to pay social security contributions, opting out of vaccination programmes and refusing recommended treatments.

Complementary Therapies

The situation described above has been gathering pace over the last couple of centuries. It all started with a government "giving" people the right to health care. This meant that every person in the land has the right to be seen by a member of the medical profession. This immediately creates, not only a lucrative business prospect, but also the notion that this person will make you healthier. The only "right" way to conquer illness and disease is by going to see a doctor. From this moment on, any other approach is obviously suspect, wrong and dangerous, and should be outlawed. No more granny's remedies, no more herbal hocus-pocus, no more bone-setters, no more healing hands, no more praying.

On the other hand, imposing this structure on the population has not dissuaded people from using "alternatives". A steady and dramatic upsurge in the use of so-called alternative therapies over the last decades is living proof of the fact that an increasing number of people are dissatisfied with the delivery of the governmental health care. Reluctantly some of the therapies are finding their way into the midstream medical system, but crucially the belief system of the medical authorities remains intact. These therapies, which started life on the alternative scene, have been "doctored" to fit in with the existing thinking on illness and health. Many of these have been tampered with so they can be used "appropriately" within the existing system. Acupuncture, for instance, is only allowed if the qualification has been gained at a recognised British school for acupuncture, where it has been removed completely from its root medical system, Chinese Medicine. As a result the main indication for the use of acupuncture within the Western system is pain control. Compare that with the philosophy of true acupuncture and its place in energy medicine as one of the tools to help re-balance a person's system and to unblock or reverse energy flow within the meridians. Other therapies, such as reflexology or aromatherapy, are used as sweeteners for patients who are keen to go "alternative", but these tools are not seen as essential or even useful in any treatment protocol.

For the same economic and social status reasons that the medical profession took control as the health care provider, the individual alternative therapies have been keen to oblige the authorities as much as they can. It is their wish to be seen as equally valid and be recognised by these authorities as equal partners. In order to become "one-of-them" they will have to accept the concept on which the empire has been built. That is to say, they will have to accept that the authority is the authority and that it knows best what is required; accept that scientific proof can only be delivered through the testing system of the authority; accept the theory on which the medical system is built, which is that a person is only a physiological entity and that all life's answers can be found within the physiological workings of a human being; accept that all human beings are essentially the same and that disease is an external evil that needs to be conquered. Historically, the alternative therapies have their roots in more basic and ancient beliefs and philosophies, and they consider life to have much wider and far reaching connections. In order for them to become accepted into the existing health care provision they need to cut themselves loose from their roots and they are only allowed to use the bits that can be explained through physiology. In spite of this we see a massive groundswell in favour of integration, because a great number of people who are active within those alternative therapies have not been educated properly about the essential roots of the plants which fruits they use. Combine this with the other typical Western priority of I have to make a living and you can understand how and why these therapies are selling out to the authority. (also see "Complementary Therapy")

In our world, complementary therapy is following the same strategy as the traditional medical system in terms of health care provision. Each branch claims to have the answer to all your medical problems and each has practitioners who will deliver the care needed. The therapies have organised appropriate authorities in every country. They have set up schools where they are in control of what is taught. They regulate and control practitioner's qualifications and postgraduate training. They have internal disciplinary hearings for dissident members. The whole structure is mirrored on the governmental health care provider system and subscribes to all basic rules of that structure.

Can we really continue to believe that alternative therapies are an alternative? They certainly still carry within themselves the seeds of their root system which reminds us of what the whole might have looked like. On the other hand, the way these alternatives have been structured in the Western world is no alternative and the delivery of health care is a collectivist's one, similar to the National Health Service. The fact that it is a private enterprise does not alter this, just as the difference between private and states medical care does not lie in the kind of medicine that is provided or the way it is provided.

Comparing Apples and Daffodils?

Most alternative therapies have their roots in ancient philosophy and medicine. A fundamental common denominator in the root belief system is the uniqueness of the individual. Whatever problem an individual might have, one can be certain of the fact that the problem has been produced, if not created, by that person. The medical condition then becomes an expression of this problem, rather than the problem itself. Once again, the way the problem expresses itself in an individual is very personal. It then becomes logical to "treat" the person rather than the medical condition in order to re-establish health.

Furthermore, an individual is seen as a much wider entity than just his/her physiological being. There is not just the acceptance of an energetic influence but more a firm recognition of man as an energetic being with a body, as opposed to a body with an energy. This is a fundamental difference with the current medical authority's view point. Over the last fifty years we have seen a rapid evolution in which we have almost come full-circle. The traditional village doctor took all life's circumstances into account when confronted by an ill person. His knowledge would include habits, emotional status, family background and even local gossip. This system was quickly pushed aside by the belief that all medical conditions could be explained, and therefore cured, by understanding the physical functioning of the body. Even psychiatric conditions are seen as a malfunctioning of part of the body, the brain, and treated with the same sort of chemicals as the rest of the body is. Begrudgingly, the medical authorities had to start admitting that emotions did play a part in being ill or healthy. Initially, these people were shoved in a corner, labelled neurotic or hypochondriacs, but as the pile started growing so did the resentment and eventually emotional causes for certain specified diseases were accepted. That meant that these people could now be treated by the newly discovered tranquilliser and anti-depressive drugs, a way of changing the chemical workings of the brain. Yet, as more and more sophisticated equipment was developed to help with proper diagnosing, a growing number of "no abnormalities" was found amongst the suffering population. This has led to two very popular phrases being used by doctors these days: "You just have to learn to live with it" and "There is nothing more anyone can do".

And it just this kind of impasse that has paved the way for the growing interest in alternative therapies. But is there a growing interest in alternative health care?

Increasing numbers of people are becoming aware that there is more to it than this. People "know" that stress, emotional shocks, unhappiness, repressed anger, and so on are having a direct effect on our health. A lot of them don't actually feel that the doctor needs to know those significant details of life, as he will not be in a position to help anyway. How much can you discuss in a seven and a half minute consultation? Which laboratory test will show up that I hate my job, and what tablet will cure it? Even counsellors, psychotherapists and social workers have lost a lot of their shine since their fanfare introduction into the health care provider's team. As a result of all this, people opted to try anything and the scene was set for a boom in alternative medicine. Word of mouth of certain successes, of time spend and care given, spread on the streets quickly, threatening to alter the medical authority's unchallenged grip on society. And they responded.

They started challenging the "alternatives", initially through ridicule, later by asking them to "prove" themselves. And this has turned out to be the crucial move. The medical authorities claimed the high ground of knowledge. They pressed home the most important point of all: how to prove who is right! The medical authorities were quick to establish that if any other approach was to be worth its salt it had to be proven, to them, that it worked in the sense the authorities had convinced themselves, and the rest of the population, life works. They drew up rules and regulations that provided a prospective alternative therapy with a framework in which it had to fit itself in, if it was to have any chance at all of becoming accepted by the powers that be. The central pillar on which the whole structure rests is that man is but a physiological being. All can be and has to be explained through biochemical processes! All tests and research studies will have to conform to this narrow view of life. The result has been overwhelming evidence of no influence. And although not recognised by the authorities the two main reasons for this are: one, you only get the results you test for, and two, the test mechanism itself can destroy the impact the therapy might have.

If you believe that a high cholesterol will lead to a higher number of heart attacks, you can "measure" the impact of a "person"-treatment that claims to reduce heart attacks by measuring its impact on the cholesterol levels. No change found means that the treatment has no effect whatsoever. Or, if you believe that there is no difference between natural vitamins and manufactured ones, you can test the impact of Vitamin C on the number of "colds" within a study group and find that artificial Vitamin C makes no difference. Your conclusion will then be that Vitamin C is a waste of time. Yet, it should be obvious that a reduction of heart attacks might be achieved without a change in cholesterol, as natural Vitamin C, which you don't "need" to test, may well strengthen your immune resistance.

If you believe that the only way to establish an impact is a double-blind-test whereby neither the patient nor the health care provider knows whether it is the real thing or a placebo, you measure the result by looking at the reaction differences between two groups. This type of test has been used to measure the impact of acupuncture by sticking needles in places away from meridian points. There was no difference between the two groups. This set-up shows a profound lack of understanding of how acupuncture works and what the influence is of the service provider by just being there. Similar comments can be made from a double-blind-test involving reflexology whereby the feet are played with without particularly stimulating reflex points, compared with specific stimulation treatment.

Setting these stringent and inappropriate study rules ensures the establishment of plenty of ammunition to shoot down and ridicule the impact of alternative approaches to health. However, what it shows more than anything else is ignorance.

A New Era?

The key to understanding what we have experienced over the last century we find in the concept of health provision itself.

A collectivist's view has ruled our society and health care system in which it has been essential, indeed unquestionable, that a central authority would organise, standardise, control and deliver the best health care anybody could possibly wish for. The government of medical knowledge decides what is true, and what isn't; what is relevant, and what isn't; and what has value, wand what hasn't. The government of medical knowledge tells you how you function in spite of the fact that they have never met you, know nothing about you and are not interested in any of that. They "know" because they have the patent on "truth"!

It is the authority that decides what we should believe and what kind of knowing is appropriate to us. It controls the "science" that we are supposed to believe and tramples on and destroys anything that does not fit into their plans. They allow "science" to progress as and when they are ready for it and are able to handle the impact of the findings, with an unapologetic dictatorial ruling. "Peer review" ensures that nothing the "establishment" can't cope with, is allowed in. Financial control via research grants and lucrative and influential job allocation ensures the loyalty of most of the recipients. Financial and social status of the self-proclaimed hierarchy and experts ensures a massive impact on and control over the media and the population.

Centrally controlled health care provider works on the assumption that what is good for one must be good for the other. The delivery of that kind of health care is a massive task and can only be successfully achieved if everybody is treated the same. This fits neatly into a democratic manifesto as equality is a much-loved soundbite these days. As we are all entitled to the same health care - it is implied that this is the best that can ever be had - we sure want it. Public opinion is manipulated to become agitated whenever there is a feeling that someone might be losing out. This ensures the powers behind the throne, the pharmaceutical industry, that it will be the public that "demands" their products, rather than them having to advertise it. Think about the public outcry about news that health care in Britain has become a lottery depending on your postcode! What an outrage that governments in Africa refuse to pay Mafia prices for anti-AIDS drugs! Surely, we are entitled to have IVF treatment for infertility on the National Health Service, no matter where you live or who you are!

When the collectivist sets out his/her stall, he/she wants to deliver the goods to every individual in the pack. Clean water, electricity, food, housing, television, medical and dental care, children's crèches, schools, jobs, are just a few of the items the collectivist is committed to to bring to each and everyone of you. And that is very commendable. However, there is a price to pay.

When one accepts a gift such as these, one has to realise that it is the provider who decides what is what. For instance, it is the government who decides what "clean water" means, what "good schooling" is, what jobs are important, and so on. Differences of opinion are not allowed as it would make the whole system unworkable.

The other price is a literal one. The only way the provider can give you all of that, is for you to provide the provider with the means to do so: you will have to pay. Therefore, the situation is as follows: I have a personal need - I pay you to see to this need for me - You can only proved a certain type of help - I have to accept the help offered as the best value for my money, without questioning whether or not the offered help covers my need.

And this is where a change is starting to take place. A growing number of people are becoming aware that a health care provider cannot deliver personal care, but can at best only deal with general needs, not individual one's. No matter what kind of health care system you propose to provide, it will always be restricted by the fact that you are trying to provide the same thing for everybody and that the same thing may not be what is needed in each individual case; the difference between treating the symptoms as the disease or the person who is expressing a disease.

The only way that can be achieved is when the health care provider is the same as the one requiring help, and when the type of help required is available. Impossible, I hear you say, and quite right. As we concluded, no health care system can claim to ever be able to do just that. No health care system can deliver health to all individuals at all times!

But you could!

From the individualist's point of view, the only really important thing in life is the individual itself. It is the individual who becomes ill, and it will be the individual who gets him/herself better. With the individual taking responsibility for his/her own health there need not be an extensive health care system. The health care provider is each individual.

But how would we know what needed to be done?

We have very short memories. We would like to believe that in modern times we are so much better at surviving in a hostile world. We forget that human beings have survived for many thousands of years, through natural disasters, plagues and wars. Nothing has stopped the human race, yet. If we believe that it is only the modern machines and techniques from the health care system that is keeping us alive, the question begs as to what kept us alive before we got wise to all of this. The truth is simple: mankind has always known what was required, first of all by instinct and secondly, by responding to the surroundings. Man has a long history of a close connection to nature and natural phenomena, and it has been this knowledge that has seen us through. Most of this of course is now rubbished by modern science, but the fact remains that it is exactly that, which has proven to have been our survival package.

We believe that we have improved health dramatically in the last half a century because that is what we are told. The health care provider in charge during that time, and still today, tells us that the system is so much better than anything that went before it. That's no news, every company advertises its own products as the best; even alternative therapies are cures for all diseases if you are to believe their adverts. Of course you believe that the health provider's "adverts" are more accurate because they are called information. At least, that is what the health provider calls them!

If you were to believe that no one knows better what you need than yourself, then those adverts generated by the authorities will mean nothing to you. If you were able to trust your instincts, the statistics thrown at you by the government to inform you how well they are doing, will not interest you. The only question that will really concern you is whether something is going to help you, and not how much chance there is for you to improve. You will want a "system" that will provide you with a 100% improvement. Guaranteed! But that must be impossible, as the health care provider keeps telling you!

If you are going to be your own health care provider then it is imperative that you have some knowledge about how to assess your health status. This means that health care should not be taught just to a selected few, but it should be a central part of life within the masses. Everyone should be taught what he/she needs to know to take control. If you are growing up in a society where you are taught to take notice of all that influences our lives, from celestial configurations to the earth you walk on and the thought that crosses your mind, you will gather essential knowledge about Life every day of your life. The University of Life will teach every one of you what you need to know to be in charge. There will be teachers everywhere, High Priests, Scientists, Parents, Family, Friends, and Peers; you will find gems in pain and suffering as well as in success. It is all these pearls strung together that will create your own personal garland of protection and knowledge.

Once a basic understanding of the forces of Life has been gained, you learn through experience to concentrate on the ones that are most important to yourself. This makes you the focal point of your own care system. This is what hands you the rains. What works 100% for you may not be the ideal for your neighbour, but then again it is his/her responsibility to care for themselves.

The individualist sees this as the only reality of survival, as all systems, no matter how successful they are at one given time, will eventually crumble and disintegrate. The human race survives because of the individuals, not because of the systems these individuals have created.

Seeing life as a collection of individuals does not necessarily mean a total separation between me and them. The forces of Life teach us that all is connected, and that we are all part of each other and of the greater entity, which we call Nature. It teaches us that surviving in peace and harmony is a matter of balance between giving and taking. There is no selfishness in the modern understanding of the word, but just a constantly moving balance. It also teaches us that life and death are mirror images of the same cycle, and that one cannot exist without the other. If we want to survive, then we will have to die. Acceptance of Nature's Laws is an essential part of the individualistic world view, and living within these laws, and understanding them, will give you the power to provide not only your own health care but also the insight of your own role in the big cogwheel of Life.

A growing number of individualists means that there are more and more people seeing through the collectivist's system as it is struggling to maintain its facade, its status and its power. Each individualist represents a small hole in the foundations of the massive building that is built on the idea that what is good for one has to be good for everyone and the believe that one system can deliver "all" to everybody at the same time. Sounds like Father Christmas!

Each individualist is a crumbled bit of concrete that has dislodged itself from the building that represents the system. It weakens the structure, which eventually will fall down. The crumbled bits of dislodged concrete is free to do whatever it needs to do to survive. The survival, more importantly the happiness, of the individual is of far greater value than the survival of the group, which is nothing but a concept. The development of the person means much more than the growth of a concept.

It was beautiful for as long as I believed in it, but now that I have grown up I can clearly see the ulterior motives behind the myth.

December 2003