- This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There’s a really disturbing story in the zman magazine of Jan 2011 within the article on Doctor Shlomo Adler of London.
A man in Eretz Yisrael fell ill and was examined in the prestigious Ichilov Hospital. Doctors said both his legs were severely infected and needed amputating r”l. The man sought a second and third opinion but they were all unanimous. Amputation was the only option.
In desperation, the Jew went to the Gerer Rebbe for a brachah who told him to contact Dr Adler for his opinion. To cut a long story short, he flew over to London and Dr Adler treated him for a whole year and b”h saved both of his legs.
The man’s wife asked Dr Adler to write his method down so she could show it to the Israeli doctors and save other patients legs and he agreed.
The hospital management were incredulous that a doctor had saved the legs of their patient when their own doctors had insisted on amputation, and all doctors in the facility were called in for a conference where the woman was invited to present Dr Adler’s letter.
The doctors looked thru his techniques with scorn.
“That’s what he did? Those are primitive methods employed before the Second World War. Today we amputate!” they said.
===
So I ask you, which method would YOU advise? Can you believe this outcome from Israeli doctors??? What can be done?
There is no doubt that SOMETIMES newer treatments are not an improvement over older ones. Take tb for example. An older treatment of collapsing the affected lobe and then reinflating it later works as well if not better than a long course of rifampin. But please be careful when reading these stories. I don’t know how much truth there is to them. Seems there is almost never an involved party around any more whom you corroborate it with. Oy pardon my terrible grammar.
Old acceptable practices have obviously been improved on most probably because the outcome or long term outcome of those old practices were not viable. Many old and proven practices led to other complications so new treatments replaced old ones. Knowledge is power, and the knowledge the medical field gains over the years and through trial and error with other patients is what gives them the knowledge to make more informed decisions on common practices for current situations.
Dr. Adler might have saved his legs for the time being, but no one knows what further complications this save will cause.
Leeches are an example of an old medical practice being put to good use. While they won’t help for strep throat, for example, (in the past, they used it for everything) they are great for limbs with gangrene! So both types are good, at the right time.
Shticky Guy, what a great story! Let’s go back to treating everything with “toiten bankes.”
By the way, where is this “Eretz Yisrael” you speak of? Since you are transliterating Hebrew with Roman letters, I presume you meant to write “Medinat Yisrael.”
PB – They are also using maggots!
BS”D
1) Depending when this was, there are a lot of unqualified FSU doctors in EY who should not be practicing.
2) The Gerrer Rebbe’s brocho came to be via this doctor. It may not be an example for anyone else. A similar story is told of the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZYA who sent someone to a doctor who was a chossid of his to get an RX for a creme that might as well have been a placebo. It worked and the patient did not need surgery. Would that creme work for anyone else? Not without the brocho. I think I know what it is, and the FDA allows it to be sold only because it was around for so long and is harmless.
3) I have a nuisance skin condition on the backs of my hands. Simple Vaseline works better than any RX I have ever used and I got many RX’s because when I first noticed it I had a very comprehensive insurance plan. Had I not asked a rov whether I can use hand creme on Pesach and gotten a “no” answer with a recommendation of Vaseline, I would never have tried Vaseline.
Let’s go back to leeches then.
“”That’s what he did? Those are primitive methods employed before the Second World War. Today we amputate!” they said.”
What an odd story. Amputation is not a “new method” of treating anything. In fact, it was certainly much more common 60 years ago. Nowadays there are more precise surgical and medical techniques which allow doctors to avoid some amputations.
There’s a saying in the medical field: “There’s no such thing as conventional and alternative medicine. There’s only medicine which works, and medicine which doesn’t work.” So, as has been mentioned, there are rare occasions where leeches are used. There’s even a disease which is successfully treated by bloodletting. Most old fashioned treatments don’t work for most things; they used to use bloodletting for every disease which mush have weakened and killed a huge number of patients.
Shticky Guy, your opposition to Medinat Yisrael will help “vie a toiten bankes.”
Shticky, please don’t be gullible. Name of the patient? Names of the Doctors? Name of his wife? Is the patient still alive? Can he come forward? What was the treatment given by Dr. Adler? What was the diagnosis by the other physicians? The second and third opinions? Any record of the “conference” where a lay person would present a medical case study to a room full of physicians based on “notes” given to her by a physician in another country? Lotsa holes in this story. Maybe it happened. I dont know.
The problem with old fashioned medicine is that it might be risky, today doctors will choose a method that is more likely to save a life over a method that might insure better quality of life. It all has to do with being afraid of being sued.
2qwerty – “It all has to do with being afraid of being sued.”
Really? They only choose a method that is more likely to save a life over a method that might insure better quality of life because they don’t want to be sued? It has nothing to do with wanting the patient to live, right?
Health, why not give a patient that choice?
2qwerty – They have that choice -find someone that will do what you want. Like in this case with Dr. Adler. Maybe Dr. Adler was sure no harm would come to the patient. We who aren’t this sure aren’t allowed either acc. to Torah or ethics (for goyishe practioners) to take this option.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.