Symptomatic Therapy?

May 8, 2021 Health & Healing No Comments

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”]

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Resistance to Change

People may want to change at the surface, but not in-depth. If the cause of some maladaptation lies in depth, change may be simultaneously sought and resisted. Resistance as fence >< as lack of motivation A particular reason for not wanting to change is like a mental fence that protects the person from uncomfortable feelings Read the full article…

A Global Vision for Mental Health

Mental health isn’t confined by borders or cultures. It affects everyone, everywhere. Yet, despite its universal relevance, the world lacks a cohesive strategy to address mental health as a global priority. Without a unified vision, we risk fragmented efforts that fail to create meaningful change. A global approach to mental health, rooted in shared values Read the full article…

Psychotherapy vs. Psychotherapies

Psychotherapy definitely works! Or is it the psychotherapist? Or the client? Then what about any theoretical model of psychotherapy? Still, psychotherapy definitely works. A good book, probably the best in this matter, is ‘The Great Psychotherapy Debate: The Evidence for What Makes Psychotherapy Work (Counseling and Psychotherapy)’ by Bruce E. Wampold and Zac E. Imel Read the full article…

Translate »