For many decades, the biomedical approach to health care has been the most widely accepted approach in Western society. The biomedical view of health and illness focuses entirely on the physical body. However, we cannot fully heal what ails us without considering the impact our social and cultural backgrounds have on our health. Biomedicine merely treats the condition with pharmaceuticals or surgical procedures without addressing any other contributing factors. That being said, the biocultural perspective views the body as just the first step in analyzing an individual’s health. This perspective then expands to include the aspects of human health that biomedicine fails to acknowledge: the influences of society and culture. The biocultural approach views our biology, social ties, and cultural beliefs as equally impactful on our health. On a micro level, cultural approaches not only highlight the importance of addressing social and cultural systems in health but the powerful macro level impact of political and economic structures as well.

As a result, the consideration of our cultural backgrounds on our health care is incredibly important, especially since we often have underlying personal beliefs about the cause and treatment of an illness. When the beliefs of a patient clash with that of their doctor, healing is oftentimes impaired. Our beliefs have much power over the success of our healing processes. For example, if we believe our physical illness is caused by an emotional or spiritual issue, and our medical doctor prescribes a pharmaceutical drug to silence the symptoms, we know the root cause has not yet been addressed and we continue living with a silenced illness instead of truly healing, which may actually cause deeper issues to arise.

Neglecting our spiritual and emotional selves is one issue with the strict biomedical approach; another issue can be seen in the explanatory model. For instance, when an individual attempts to describe their symptoms to their healthcare provider and their expectations for desired care are not met, this is often because the patient and provider have different cultural backgrounds. This is where the biomedical approach fails to view human health as a whole; culture is very much an important factor in having our healthcare needs met fully. When a healer comes from the same or similar background as the patient, the patient feels understood and more open to the treatments being offered. When a patient feels uncomfortable with the foreign treatments being offered by a healer who is not culturally similar, they might consciously or subconsciously reject what is being offered.

Furthermore, when the source of health and illness is viewed entirely within the context of the physical body, medicalization occurs. While this Western approach is appropriate under many circumstances, medicalization can also be seen as unnecessarily invasive when it comes to normal biological functions and life events. An example of this would be the medicalization of reproductive health. This includes fertility, contraceptives, pregnancy and childbirth. In many cultures throughout the world, these normal biological happenings are approached with popular and folk medicines. The popular sector of health care is the lay sector found within our social networks. For example, a pregnant woman may receive advice from her sisters, mother, or friends. She may hear about a way to treat a common pregnancy ache or pain with home remedies from her neighbor. Folk medicine is the sector that includes healers with a holistic approach. This sector includes alternative and complimentary modalities like massage and herbal medicine. An example of this would be a woman experiencing fertility issues and receiving Maya abdominal massage.

While the medicalization of our reproductive health is just an example of the dominant nature of technocratic care, the reach of this model spans across almost every biological process. One of the more fascinating things about Western medicine is the patenting and marketing of pharmaceutical drugs that contain properties originating from the plant-based medicines of indigenous practices. Of the top 150 brand name drugs, 57 percent contain at least one major compound that was originally extracted from a plant (Quinlan, 2011: 394). I find this incredibly interesting because a system that seeks to dominate the world of health care and exterminate folk remedies is gaining a hefty portion of its knowledge from indigenous cultures. The domination of medicine is yet another symptom of Western cultural imperialism.

Human beings are multifaceted. We require multifaceted health care. The beauty of ethnomedical systems is that the collective aspects of natural and supernatural treatments for the physical and mental bodies is acknowledged and honored. In an attempt to gain acknowledgment from the biomedical community that the efficacy of botanical medicine is indeed real, it is often dismissed and the truth ridiculed. With this in mind, is the medical community truly unaware of the depth and richness of the history of botanical compounds found in their beloved pharmaceutical drugs? Are they aware of the endemic cultures responsible for discovering these plants? Perhaps the reason is not ignorance, but domination; it seems clear it’s the perpetuation of contemporary colonialism within Western societies. Without paying respect and offering gratitude to the various healers and healing systems that have contributed to Western medicine, how can we truly make progress in the realm of health care?

That being said, the hierarchal structure in place in Western health care is very apparent. In order to gain status within this structure, a doctor must adhere to the strict indoctrination of biomedical ideologies. The medical industry in this society is a sector within the political and economic systems. With this in mind, we can see that health and healing are no longer a basic human right, but a means for profit since these medical professionals are highly specialized in their field of practice. Whereas, in the folk and popular sectors of healing systems, we often find healers or lay-people providing free or low-cost services, or we see a healthy barter system in place. Western health systems would benefit from a reform of their social and cultural structures so they may better serve the individual, and a reform of their economic and political structures so they may better serve society as a whole.

In addition to the rising costs of health care in biomedicine, there are many other issues to address as well. A key player in human health is diet and nutrition. Culturally-speaking, diet varies considerably. In Western societies, we see processed, sugary foods as a staple to modern diets. In the United States and most Western countries, diet-related chronic diseases represent the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality (Cordain, et al., 2005: 350). In other cultures, we might see fruits, vegetables, and meats as dietary staples. However, when it comes to diet and nutrition, there is yet another system of domination in place. Poverty and gender inequalities are among the major issues causing the inaccessibility of resources, thus a powerfully negative impact on health is experienced by individuals and communities, in both urban and rural areas across the globe. An inadequate diet leads to more health issues that likely will not be addressed in a biomedical context.

Without expanding too much on diet-related issues, though incredibly relevant, I think it’s equally important to focus on the merging of systems. Medical pluralism is the coming together of various healing traditions, either by the patient or the practitioner. The history of the relationship between complimentary medicine (CM) and mainstream health care has shifted from the early days of pluralism, through hostility and exclusion, to one of grudging acceptance. However, even with the beginning of acceptance and integration, medical dominance is still an issue within the industry. Myers (2003) states that there is a bleak future and fear among the traditional CM occupations that the future of CM integration will lead to biomedical dominance in their profession.

Not only is domination an issue with biomedicine attempting to integrate biocultural perspectives into the mainstream domain, but appropriation is also a major problem. Biomedical practitioners are beginning to appropriate complimentary and alternative practices by integrating alternative modalities into their own practice while still managing to oppress and subjugate alternative medicine practitioners who specialize in those modalities. For example, a medical doctor may attempt a quick post-operative massage around a healing incision, instead of referring the patient to a professional massage therapist who specializes in post-operative massage. In hospital settings, where the medical hierarchy is strictly intact, we see this system of dominance in play even when professionals should be working as equals. The biomedical industry promotes itself as scientific medicine, which perpetuates this system of dominance. Many biocultural approaches are rooted in scientific knowledge but still remain to be seen as the “lesser” of the two approaches by Westernized providers. By maintaining this view, boundaries are created that marginalize other approaches to medicine. Unfortunately, without proper recognition from the dominant professionals, many therapies and treatments are not covered by insurance, thus making them inaccessible to many people.

Having discussed a few political and economic issues in health care systems, and touching on some evolutionary history with diet, we see that human health and illness is deeply affected by these realms. With these realms being vastly different in various areas of the world, we see basic human needs being neglected from culture to culture. In societies where biomedicine is the mainstream choice, we see facets of our health being neglected. If we address and begin to diminish the attitude of a medical hierarchy or the idea that biomedicine is the ultimate approach in Western healthcare, then it’s possible complimentary medicine would have a chance at establishing its own respected professional sector within the greater system. Professionalization is the approach many of these health care providers are adopting. In order to do this, there is a continual push to improve both education and practice standards amongst these professions. This would be a far more beneficial approach than crossing the lines between biomedicine and biocultural ideals, with respect to pluralism. In pursuing self-regulation, the process of professionalization may lead to CMPs sacrificing their integrity as the boundaries between CM and biomedicine begin to blur, and that excessive standardization may alter the practice of CM considerably (Clarke et al., 2004; Eisenberg et al., 2002; Parker, 2003).

However, I think if conventional medical doctors were to adopt some forms of complimentary medicine in their practice, they may begin acknowledging the benefits. If they incorporate some modalities without attempting to eradicate those who specialize in those modalities, we may see some progress in their attitudes toward complimentary medicine. To some, this may seem like just another way for biomedicine to remain in control and while I do agree with that to an extent, I do believe opening the borders somewhat could have a positive affect on how alternative medicine is viewed by the Western ideologists, especially since the biocultural providers are already the more willing of the two sectors.

Proving the validity of traditional medicine to the biomedical world doesn’t seem like it should be much of a priority either, since it’s already viewed as incredibly valid to those who reap its benefits, honor it, and see it as effective and culturally relevant. Without our minds being clouded by the desire to prove natural medicine as worthy, it would be great to continue progress in maintaining self-regulated standards amongst the communities. The larger the system, the more likely it is to become corrupt. This is especially true when power and profit are involved, which is absolutely the case in the Western health care system.

When we begin to understand the benefits of approaching health in a biocultural manner, we are then acknowledging the fact that human beings are multi-faceted and deserve care in all areas that affect their health and their ability to heal. If health practitioners were to acknowledge this, if they were taught to value these facets, then perhaps we could make significant progress in providing care to those who seek it. Every human being deserves to have their rights respected. It’s unfortunate that so many ego-driven people desire positions of higher status in the medical industry. When this happens, we continually see blatant disregard for patients’ desired treatments. We see an authoritarian approach to health and human wellness. We see doctors dismissing the wishes of patients, even when things like informed consent are supposedly valued.

The first thing we must abolish in order to improve our situation is to create a sustainable system that serves instead of divides. The key things we see at play within the current biomedical system include oppression, subjugation, domination and inequality. We see voiceless patients becoming compliant consumers. We see profit being held at a higher value than human health. We see massive hospitals being erected only for sick people to enter and sick people to exit back out into the world with treatments that only address physical symptoms. We see healers involved in ancient healing practices that are known to their cultures to be affective, being mocked and oppressed. We see traditional plant-based medicines being appropriated by the pharmaceutical industry. We see completely unsustainable health care systems being erected with unsustainable regulations that aren’t in the best interest of humanity. We must affect a change. In order for this to happen, we must rid the system of oppressive, dominating qualities and replace them with a love and respect for the human experience. The mainstream must adopt the biocultural approach because without it, we neglect our social and cultural selves. When we neglect those aspects of our humanity, our bodies and minds suffer greatly.