Editor,
Apropos the article by Dr. Oishee Mukherjee “Time critical for reform” ( ST, January 24, 2017) I agree that the convention that the modern treatment may be retarded if homeopaths are allowed to practice and prescribe allopathic medicines is unfounded. The question I would like to ask is, what’s a modern treatment or modern medicine? The Western treatment or Allopathy, a word coined by Samuel Hanemann (the creator of Homeopathy), is no doubt modern in its procedure and treatment protocol. But it is very wrong to say that allopathy is an exclusive modern medicine.
Modern medicine, if we really want to define it is a system of treatment that takes all that is proven as useful and scientific in therapy regardless of whether the source is allopathy, homeopathy or ayurvedic. That means modern medicine includes allopathy as well as other streams like Homeopathy and Ayurveda.
If you ask me who is a more modern medical practitioner between an allopath and homeopath, keeping in mind that modern chiefly means proven scientifically, my answer would be the one with the ability to find the root of a patient’s maladies and who passionately tries to find the answer, not the one whose protocol is to ask one question then briefly direct the beam of the torch down your throat, write a long prescription including a couple of tests like x-rays and all, then ask a couple more questions, all under 2-3 minutes when you consult for a cough that you have. A modern medical practitioner is one who would not assume a patient has a virus or something deadly and ask for expensive diagnostic tests if the common cold explains the patient’s symptom. And a modern medical practitioner understands and empathizes with the Indian society and would not prescribe costly brand of medicine when an equally effective cheap generic medicine is available. That being said, in our state we do have many specialists in this age of specialists. But, alas, we have only a few real modern medical practitioners.
And to the question of whether homeopaths may or may not be able to interpret modern investigations and diagnostic tests, the answer is, why not if there is a properly designed bridge course? After all, every modern medical investigation and diagnostics test is well documented isn’t it? Lastly, I would like to say that moving to just one scientific system of treatment in India, combining all that is proven useful from different streams is a noble dream on the part of the Indian government.
Yours etc.,
T Fightingstar L Mawlong,
Via email
Appointment of new EC and CEC
Editor,
Om Prakash Rawat is being appointed as 22nd Chief Election Commissioner after retirement of Achal Kumar Jyoti, while Ashok Lawasa is appointed Election Commissioner. A Public-Interest-Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court in July 2015 seeking the much-needed and long-awaited reforms in selection of Election Commissioners by a collegium which also consists of the Prime Minister and the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha. Even the then Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi also publicly favoured such a system which already exists for selection of Information Commissioners and Vigilance Commissioners.
The post of Election Commissioners must be kept totally unbiased by adopting the collegiums-system of selection. It is indeed unfortunate that eye-brows are often raised by opposition-parties on the selection of certain Election Commissioners who are personal favourites of political rulers. But the irony of the Indian political system is that instead of inducing reforms as demanded while they were in opposition, political rulers themselves repeat the same wrongdoings as in the case of selection of Election Commissioners.
Yours etc.,
Madhu Agrawal
(Guinness Record Holder for letters in newspapers)
Delhi – 6