Moral Dilemmas in Teaching Anthropology

First, let me say that I am not a cultural anthropologist or ethnographers, I have taken some classes in cultural anthropology in the past, but I am an archaeologist at present.

This semester, I am assigned to a class on medical anthropology, and in some respects it could be an interesting and productive experience.   I certainly have no problem looking at modern biomedicine as  being comparable to non-western ethnomedicine or cult medicine.  Clearly there are functional and cultural levels of comparison that can be made, it’s simply the methodology (and obviously the success rates) that differ.  I will even sway to postmodernism far enough to say that modern medicine has been and will always be influenced by the biases and culture, though I think it important to point out that unlike religious and mystical beliefs modern science attempts to step past these issues through processes of evaluation, review, testing, and revision.

My problem comes when students are told that non-western medicines “work” or are “effective” in comparable ways to Western medicine.   Looking at pure ethnomedicine, that associated with indigeonous groups etc, it may be all they offer some positive results.  However, such medicine is often of a limited value for simple things like infant diarrhea, which leads to higher infant mortality rates, or infection.  Not only this, but without recognition of such things as the germ theory of disease, ethnomedicine often has no issue with such practices as use of contaminated water or food products exposed to insects.  So, while it might be the best offered in some cases, it is not “effective” in a broad sense, nor is it comparable to even the most basic life saving changes available through Western medicine.

While there are places on earth that have little or no access to Western medicine and subsequently fall back onto traditional practices, there are groups in the developed world which popularize non-Western medicine as well.   One of the first that springs to mind is religious groups.  Obviously, since religion is so important to so many people that it can be a powerful force in determining their health care actions.  Does it work though?  Well, lets have a quick run down of some good examples:

• A 2006 Harvard study showed that third party prayer is not an effective remedy for illness.
• Various religious groups are against a potentially life saving HPV vaccine, because they want sex to have terrible negative consequences.
• Various religious groups are for a completely inept approach to sexual education that ruins peoples’ lives.
• In Ethiopia, a religious cure for AIDS lead many to stop taking their medication and endure unnecessary suffering.
• Some Christians refuse life saving blood transfusions based on a reading of the bible that possesses limited acceptance and seemingly contradicts the belief of other Christians.
• Of course, we must also remember those religious individuals oppose to evolution being taught in schools, and the disastrous effects this might have on science and medicine in the future.

Are any of these, or countless other religious beliefs valid? No, at least not in any way actually or measurable by modern science.  Instead, they mislead people as to the actual workings of the world and expose them to suffering and potential risk that modern medicine and science could easily prevent.  I certainly would not claim this as “working” or being “effective”.

Of course, there is a third stream of non-western medicine, alternative medicine.  This runs a gamut of beliefs and systems, and can often include indigeonous or  religious beliefs, but all share the fact that they are not accepted by scientists because of a lack of evidence.  Obviously, some folk remedies are fine, such as chicken soup for a cold, even if they do no appreciable good, they also do no harm.  In such cases they can serve to remedy stress and provide mental ease, but not necessary physical relief.  In other cases, alternative medicine is simply a method of separating money from the sick or even the healthy.  But perhaps the worst part of alternative medicine’s acceptance and practice is that it can quite often be life threatening.  Chelation, a medical practice used in treatment for exposure to heavy metals, has no proven ability to help with Autism, but it is presented by some as a cure.  It can be quite risky, and potentially deadly.  Additionally, there are those out there that suggest against western treatments, such as inoculations, which of course places those without such treatments in imminent danger that cannot be over stated.  Let’s also not forget  homeopathy, the treatment based on exposure to substances in such low amounts that they do not actually exist any more. Do any of these treatments work?  No, at least not in the ways presented or at any appreciable level that can serve as evidence.

So, why do I bring up all these relatively well known examples and facts in a subject that is very off topic for this blog?   Quite truthfully, because I feel greatly bothered by being involved in a class where students are taught that ethnomedicines are “effective” and that they “work”.  The idea that people don’t do things that do not work is just an adage, with no discernible truth, and quite a few obvious counter examples.  Beyond the fact that such ideas simply trespass against my basis of thought in science and materialism, it bothers me because I have worked in veterinary medicine, and have seen people favor approaches such as homeopathy (even the Humane Society supports it), and because I am human and I have had family that has suffered through terrible sickness and illness, to think of someone offering them false hope is sad, but is what happens to thousands in the western world every day.

I  am certainly not saying modern biomedicine is perfect, it has issues and biases, as do all methods of acquiring knowledge. However, it both attempts to move past such blocks through methodology that works and has a much higher rate of success in dealing with suffering and disease.  I am also not saying that ethnomedicine never works, one must only look at something like aspirin to see a non-western medicine that succeeded.  However, such successes are rare (as they are in western medicine which spends billions developing new treatments), and when they do occur, they are verifiable.  Perhaps a better position that saying that these therapies “work” is to say that people use them, and offer an outlook based in cultural relativism, not jump on the Kon-Tiki and go native.