Salmon J W, Berliner H S
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1980 Fall;5(3):535-53. doi: 10.1215/03616878-5-3-535.
A forthright rebellion against the philosophical and clinical orientations of scientific medicine has occurred in the United States during the 1970s. This rebellion includes a growing number of people engaged in self-care practices in attempts to alter their health status through "lifestyle" adjustments, as well as a diverse amalgamation of practitioners (both medical and otherwise), who offer a wide range of therapies outside the mainstream of modern medical practice. Holistic health care has lately become the rubric under which these therapies are grouped. Scientific medicine is the term commonly used to refer to procedures officially sanctioned by the organized medical profession. In the late 19th century, scientific medicine emerged as an advance beyond allopathic medicine after germ theory provided an explanation and, later treatment for infectious diseases. Financial support by private philantropic foundations came in the wake of the Flexner Report on medical education, which provoked a reorganization of medical education in the United States. The subsequent hegemony of scientific medicine thus became assured. To date, few policy analysts have attempted to assess holism and its health policy implications. This article delineates several of the more important policy issues raised by the holistic movement, a phenomenon that represents a challenge to the present organization of health care institutions as well as to scientific medicine.
20世纪70年代,美国发生了一场对科学医学的哲学和临床导向的直接反叛。这场反叛包括越来越多的人进行自我保健实践,试图通过“生活方式”调整来改变自己的健康状况,以及各种各样的从业者(包括医学和其他领域)的融合,他们提供现代医学主流之外的广泛疗法。整体医疗保健最近已成为这些疗法的统称。科学医学是通常用来指代有组织的医学专业正式认可的程序的术语。19世纪后期,在细菌理论为传染病提供了解释并随后进行治疗之后,科学医学作为对抗传统疗法医学的进步而出现。私人慈善基金会的财政支持是在关于医学教育的《弗莱克斯纳报告》之后到来的,该报告引发了美国医学教育的重组。科学医学随后的霸权地位因此得以确立。迄今为止,很少有政策分析师试图评估整体论及其对健康政策的影响。本文阐述了整体运动提出的几个更重要的政策问题,这一现象对当前医疗机构的组织以及科学医学都构成了挑战。