Particularly in Western Countries health professionals like to reduce people to "sacks" when it comes to treatment of disease. A sack can be filled if it runs empty, or poured out if there is too much in it, or patched if there is a hole in it. Somehow one size fits all.
This is the materialistic view of our world which is widespread in the West . However, on the other hand all people think they are special and unique, even those defending the "sack" dogma think so, at least when it comes to them. They simply love to apply double standards.
Owing to my experience it is adequate to use medicine of biological or biochemical origin which occurs naturally, or to use these molecules in a pharmaceutically modified form. Especially in a case of emergency this works immediately and can safe life. There is no doubt about it.
It is different with molecules derived from human thinking. In medical practice we have to be en vogue using this kind of medication. Drugs praised five years ago may be called obsolete nowadays. One has to be alert as a physician. You may be called ignorant, not using the new pills and after a few years be called ignorant again for using them.
Let me detail the two approaches "Western Medicine" and "Traditional Medicine". So Western Medicine is great in acute medicine but has to be applied very critically with regard to chronic diseases. To be en vogue can be expensive and sometimes even deadly.
Now Traditional Medicine, such asTibetan Medicine, Ayurveda, Kampo, or Traditional Chinese Medicine can alleviate suffering from chronic diseases or even heal them. They have been practised for over thousand years. There is no need to be en vougue. However, these Eastern Systems do not seem to have much to offer in case of emergency.
Therefore, I try to use Western Medicine in case of emergency or in treating acute disease but prefer to stick to the traditional systems for treatment of chronic diseases. Sometimes, both systems have to be combined to help the patient within a reasonable time range. This is what I call integrated medicine.
Since I am neither a Tibetan nor a Chinese doctor I rely on a concept I know best and which has its roots in Europe. This is called Anthroposophical Medicine.
Rudolf Steiner said: "Anthroposophy is the path that will lead the spirtual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe". This path has inspired many cultural fields in education, agriculture, architecture, science, economy, arts, and medicine.
Hence, to me as an Anthroposophist there must be more to the "sack" I am looking at during an appointment. I try to consider the unique individual within the "sack" being unique just because of the spirit therein. This is another reason to apply integrated medicine.
In Anthroposophical Medicine plants (e.g. mistletoe), mineral compounds, and animal preparations are used in dynamic potencies as in homoeopathy but on a regular basis only up to D30. The homooepathic physician may use the same medication in the end as I do but the way to find the right remedy is different. I also use astrology, particularly with regards to children. I do not mean that junk-astrology you will be confronted with in daily newspapers but astrology which was used in ancient times to plan wars by the old kings or by the physicians of Tibet to treat patients in former times and behold; they still do. All right, according to the "sack" dogma I am a quack of course. However, I prefer to be a quack rather than a chap mending sacks all day long instead.
Apart from these remedies there are other forms of treatment within Anthroposophical Medicine. Eurythmy with special forms for healing, music therapy or art therapy. In addition, I am particularly interested in maintaining healthy gut flora and also am interested in urinalysis. You know quacks like to watch urine glasses (cf. old paintings). However, as I am not only specialized in general medicine but also in laboratory medicine (clinical pathology) and infectious diseases I do a lot of testing which quacks normally do not do and those physicians believing in the "sack" dogma have possibly never heard of. Again, this is what I call integrated medicine.