Quacks are by definition, untrained persons who use no proper science while treating. Dr Chalko, in his June 19 write up confounds the issue of quack vs. professional doctors. Genuine Faith healers also can’t be called quacks. We have enough evidence that faith healing works, though it is often misused by pseudo-pirs or professionals. Dr Chalko seems to echo now discredited Enlightenment myths about the definitions of reason and health. Alternative systems of medicine which have been very successfully working from thousands of years deserve better names than seem to be granted by the writer. These systems were marginalized by the advent of modernity and this meant unilateral progress in certain narrow field of health sector but huge loss as well to what had traditionally been (now again revived by WHO) integral conception of human health. Hakeem is unfortunately stigmatized term in popular imagination as compared to the term doctor. How much loss humanity has suffered at the hands of metanarrative of allopathism is evident to anyone who has some acquaintance with dozens of alternative therapies practized by ancients and now vigourously revived in different parts of the world. Shaman doctors are known to remove gall stones without operating or stitching and spilling a single drop of blood. There are unbelievable successes and that too with naturally available substances in treating  many problems. Most diseases are psychosomatic and hence allopathic system is not the best option. Those who want only allopathic system to be given recognition and club others with quackery or something less than officially patronized allopathism are pitiable and have little understanding of history of medicine, of scores of systems evolved by diverse civilizations for treating disease.
 The term doctor has historically been used for those who treat and not those who exclusively treat with allopathic system. It has been used for the learned. It has been in vogue for PHDs. It should continue to be in vogue with all those who treat diseases with sound science (which is not the exclusive mandate of allopathic practitioners). I would suggest the term allopathic practitioner to persons trained in this system for treatment. The fact that  veterinarians prescribe mostly allopathic drugs doesn’t mean that they refuse to grant the credit to other systems of medicine. Misdeeds of allopathic system are too numerous to need enumeration. Medicine shops are everywhere today because we have destroyed health by promoting allopathism exclusively.  Resistance to drugs, side effects, cost are only some problems of allopathic system. Traditionally Kashmiris had been doing quite well with traditional nonallopathic systems. Many amongst our grandparents never tasted any medicine. Allopathic system is complicit with Capitalism. Pharmaceutical industry which mostly manufactures allopathic drugs is one of the most successful industries that has done great harm though some good also. We need to be aware of Marxist and traditionalist critiques of modern pharmaceutical industry. Foucault's notion of medicalization of the body needs to be kept in mind while issuing fatwas against nonallopahtic systems. I suggest that term medico or allopathic practitioner be reserved for what we ordinarily called human doctors. We can’t rewrite dictionaries  now and ask PHDs, veterinarians etc.  to drop the designation of doctor.
The word doctor according to different dictionaries  means a teacher, one skilled in profession, or a branch of knowledge, a learned man, . It is an academic title  originally meaning a person so well versed in his department as to be qualified to teach. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it originally applied to learned men in scripture. It was only in 1377 it was used in the sense of “medical doctor.” According to the earliest entry in OED doctor is applied in popular current use to any medical practitioner and to medicine-man in a primitive tribe.
Dr Chalko ignores the fact that by his own definition vets qualify as doctors as they mostly use allopathic drugs. He must be aware that veterinarians use allopathic drugs. If the term doctor applies to one trained to use allopathic drugs for treatment (without regard to species treated as he has not specified the species homo sapiens when defining the term) veterinarians fit the definition. But I think we should have no identity crisis reflecting unconscious inferiority complex if many categorizes of people are appending the term doctor with their names. Paramedical or paravet staff may sometimes be called as doctors by ignorant masses but for that you need to educate them. No body writes doctor if he is not trained or certified for the same. No paravet or chemist calls himself a doctor but if others call them it is not their fault.
Doctor is honorific title that suits intellectuals and all those who contribute significantly to society. The case of Keats is instructive. He was asked by many to abandon poetry for medical science. He almost accepted the proposal but then a friend of his prevailed upon him to continue poetry. Thank God he continues to provide spiritual sustenance to countless thousands of ‘patients.’ As a medical doctor he would have treated a few people only and that too only until his death. As a poet, as a doctor of soul, he continues to inspire all of us including our doctors of body.
Those who treat for money primarily are traders of flesh. From them the title of doctor should be snatched. Few human doctors are humane doctors. How many can we count?
 
Tail piece
A few sentences on medico vs. veterinarian debate. They are both indispensable. Unless I am medically well caredI can’t treat animals. Unless we supply good milk, eggs and meat medicos can’t have good health. Vets have more vital role to play if we talk of development of economy, job creation, poverty eradication. I can bet that if enough attention is given to cooperative livestock farming we will have hunger free Kashmir and provide free food to all. We can supply free milk, meat, eggs if govt. gives attention to livestock sector.  We are providing largely free vet care to people. Not so the medicos. They are the biggest capitalists in Kashmir and fleece people by illegally charging more fee (There are some exceptions, thank God). There is no need of private clinics and nursing homes or hospitals if medicos were accountable, primary and secondary centers of treatment were made to work and not overburden our tertiary medical institutes or hospitals. People friendly govt. would ban private practice of all doctors as there is no need. Simple calculations show that we can provide health care to all citizens by better management of even only half of the govt. hospitals or dispensaries. But there are mafias and rackets for promoting private clinics. How shameful that even SIIMS doctors are running private clinics. People are compelled to wait in long lines and spend thousands in private clinics. More legally conscious public would demand free medical care. Spending billions of rupee on health budget and still not providing good health care is what mis-governance is.
If government gives due attention to development of livestock sector in few years vet will be the first choice in common entrance as is the case elsewhere in many parts of the advanced world. Because we have no sense of economy, our agri-based economy, no sense of environment we go on ignoring it.

Lastupdate on : Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:00:00 IST