Symptomatic Therapy?
If the symptom is a symbol of oneself, and one attacks the symptom, one attacks oneself. That doesn’t seem like the best way.
It’s not always bad to tackle the symptom.
While nature inside you heals itself, it may be OK to have fewer symptoms as long as this doesn’t stand in the way of nature’s healing. This is how most medications work. [see: “Most drugs are sheer symptomatic”]
Even more, temporary relief of symptoms may be needed to get past an acute episode that might lead to negative consequences, even death.
Listening to symptoms
In psycho-somatics, the symptom can frequently be seen as an attempt of communication from the deeper mind-body. In such cases – and there are many – it is better to listen. As such, one can also avoid the need for the symptoms to shout even louder. [see: “Those Who Do Not Want to Listen, Will Get Symptoms”]
Of course, listening to symptoms this way is not always straightforward. That is why AURELIS lends much support.
Merely symptomatic therapy
If the goal of therapy is only to get rid of the symptom as easily and quickly – and cheaply – as possible, one may be asking for troubles.
Nature calls ― you don’t listen ― nature calls harder for you to open yourself. Keeping closed may be more comfortable in the short term, but not therefore in the longer term.
Poetically said:
If the flower bud doesn’t open…
You may find two ‘AURELIS metaphors’ about this in free e-book 2 on this website (also on smartphone).
Unfortunately, much therapy is merely symptomatic.
This includes all circumstances in which one relies exclusively on placebo. [see: “Placebo Based Medicine”] Placebo is one-way communication, an instrument that doesn’t intrinsically respect nature. No invitation for the bud to open ― quite the contrary.
In this, it is different from empathy. [see: “Empathy vs. Placebo”]
Patient consent
It is less evident but much more important that patients should know when their treatment is symptomatic and what this means in-depth, also in the long-term.
Scientific studies in this sense are challenging. In other words, we don’t know much about long-term effects ― but we should. In the long term, symptomatic therapy might be dangerous.
This may be a very inconvenient truth in many ways. It may be a healing one if we act upon it.
[see: “Only Truth Can Truly Cure”]
Related Posts
Is Medicine Competent in Psychosomatics?
Undoubtedly, physicians are the most competent creatures on earth regarding anything related to somatic (bodily) health. But regarding the psyche? Of course, physicians can (and must) be empathic. But empathy does not form part of medical competence. It’s a nonspecific factor. For psychosomatics, one needs to be profoundly competent in the psyche ― way beyond Read the full article…
Control-Based Therapy – Profound or Superficial?
A car needs no more than superficial control. An organism instead needs deep control, which may be prevented by superficial control, like the surface reflections of a pond may prevent one from seeing its depth. Life is about controlling the environment. Even more, life is about controlling the inner milieu. Controlling the environment aims to Read the full article…
Non-Specific Factors of Therapy
Psychotherapy works irrespective of the specific modality. That points to the fact that the non-specific factors work. What are they? Specific factors are those elements that are specifically delineated by proponents of a given therapy as the active causes of change. Non-specific (common) factors are factors that are not specified in the theoretical or practical Read the full article…