Nevertheless, for increasing the efficacy of these systems and to make them greater instruments of public service it is indubitably necessary that not only training in them be improved but also their practice duly organised and regulated. Quakery is undoubtedly in vogue in these systems which calls for drastic elimination. In this respect the reported recommendations of the Dave Committee appear to be understandably rather halting.
True, the Committee has recommended that only registered practitioners should be allowed to practice indigenous medicine and that for registration a practitioner must possess “some recognized qualifications,” yet not only those qualification remain undefined but the recommendation itself is qualified by an ancillary recommendation that the existing practitioners, who are not qualified for registration, may continue their practice.
For such disconcerting dualism and disorder in the sphere of indigenous medicine its practitioners are not to blame. In fact, if the resolutions of the various Ayurvedic, Hakimi and Homoeopathic conferences periodically taking place in the various parts of the country are any indication, the practitioners thereof sincerely want better training, research and their overall modernisation.
They rather complain that it is the step – motherly treatment, hitherto accorded to these systems by the Government that is retarding their progress. And their grievance is genuine to a very great extent. For one thing, the Dave Committees recommendations regarding registration can hardly be implemented unless either standard institutions for imparting training are set up or the existing ones, at least a number of them, are upgraded. but when that is going to be done is uncertain.
Doubts and misgivings as such, are bound to linger as to when exactly the recommendations of the Dave committee may be implemented. At any rate, for quite a long time yet the existing drift in the filed of indigenous medicine and Homoeopathy is like to continue unless the Authorities bestir themselves without undue delay to end it.
HINDUSTHAN STANDARD, 12.1.56.
A RATIONAL APPROACH.
The Dave Committees reported approach to homoeopathy and India indigenous systems of medicine will be welcomed by the country instead of setting its face sternly against these systems. The committee is understood to be in favour of standardising education in them and introducing a form of registration for practitioners with recognised qualifications. It is expected to complete its report before long and submit it to the Government of India.
The Central Council of Health will consider its recommendations early in February and then action will be taken on them by the State Governments. The question of a uniform standard of education in these systems of medicine is also likely to be thoroughly examined and reported on by the Committee within six months. On all showing, therefore, a positive step is going to be taken in regard to the regulation of the practice of vaidyas, hakims and homoeopaths.
It is regrettable that a large section of allopaths in this country has taken up an unreasonably hostile attitude to the the homoeopathic, ayurvedic, and unani, systems of medicine. Year after year they express their antagonism to these systems through their conferences. The Union Health Ministry also seems to share their views in a considerable measure. On the other hand, not to speak of the homoeopaths, the vaidyas and the hakims, the public in general and even many surgeons are not prepared to dismiss these systems as totally unscientific and worthless.
For instance, the All – India Surgeons Conference a few days ago made a plea for providing opportunities to these systems for development on right lines. The Bhore committee, too, did not condemn them outright, though it chose to leave the issue of official support to the State governments. The Planning commission, however, is definitely in favour of improving the systems altogether and thus clearing the field only for allopathy is, therefore, misleading. The Union Health Ministrys antipathy to them also is not at all well – grounded.
From the commonsense point of view, no system of medicine is perfect. The protagonists of allopathy cannot claim that it is the only correct and effective system while all other are simple quackeries. If pragmatic test is any guide, as it is in all scientific investigations, the homoeopathic, ayurvedic, and unani systems have proved their worth not much less than the allopathic system.
Besides, to turn a blind eye to any filed is essentially unscientific. Leaving aside homoeopathy, whose scientific basis is as strong as that of allopathy and which is an accepted system in many countries of the scientific West, the ayurvedic and the unani systems of medicine have proved their efficacy in healing ailments through long centuries. This fact by itself constitutes a telling reply to those who are so anxious to banish them speedily from free India.
It might be – and, as a matter of fact, it is – that for a variety of reasons their growth and development have suffered for long period and they have come to lose their vitality, to a very large extent, to-day. That, however, does not justify their abolition. Rather, they call for appropriate remedial measures and, gratifyingly enough, the Dave Committee has looked at the issue from this point of view.
Apart from the comparative merits of allopathy as against homoeopathy, ayurveda and the latter to do not necessarily suffer by such comparison – the allopathic system of medicine, as it is practised now in this country, is something which the public want to avoid as long as they can. And that is because of the excessively high cost of treatment by this system.
The doctors fees, the price of medicine and expenditure on pathological tests and similar other come to a level beyond the reach of the common people. Pathological examinations have become now almost a normal feature of allopathic treatment and cost they involve – not unoften as a result of underhand arrangements between laboratories and the practising physicians – is pretty well – known to the public.
But even if the patient is aware of such malpractice, he cannot escape the exploitation. Another noticeable point in allopathic treatment is the increasing use of patent medicines which have come to replace, on a very large – scale, what is known as prescriptions by individual physicians in each individual case. Whether patent medicines automatically suit individual patients, whose constitutions and temperaments are not naturally uniform, is a matter on which expert medical men alone are competent to give their opinion.
The public, however, have to suffer on another account, namely, the coast of patent medicines. In most cases, these medicines have to be purchased in entire phials only a part of which is used and the rest has to be thrown away. This means sheer waste of money which the vast majority of the people can ill afford. From all these points of view, it is palpably unwise to do sway with all other systems of medicine except allopathy for which many allopathic practitioners have been persistently clamouring and to which the Union.
Health Ministry also seems to be somewhat inclined. The best course would be to reorganise the Homoeopathic and the indigenous systems of medicine on a rational basis, as the Dave Committees is reported to have suggested. It is hoped the Union and the State Governments, instead of being misled by interested slogans, will proceed along the lines recommended by that committee so that the homoeopathic, the ayurvedic systems of medicine may be placed on a sound and progressive basis.
AMRITA BAZAR PATRIKA, 19.1.56.
Calcutta