© Galina Nelyubova
June 10, 2024
Dominik Pförringer
Our columnist Prof. Dr. Dominik Pförringer on the benefits and pitfalls of miraculous healing processes and the questionable nature of some digital health promises.
By
Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Dominik Pförringer
Find a DoctorSearch the network for suitable specialists and contact them directly
There are these aphorisms that persistently hold, are hardly questioned, and when analyzed precisely, often reveal surprisingly little. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', 'The end justifies the means', or 'He who heals is right' – at first glance, these may all seem applicable and not grossly wrong.
As so often, however, they are reduced to the point that the essential and thus critical aspects and moments are overlooked. As a conventional doctor, I'm perfectly fine if someone manages their migraine with homeopathic remedies as long as they don't think a hip fracture can be swiftly fixed with minimal effort, or that a severely heart-failing asthmatic can be turned into an Olympian.
There are universal remedies, wonder powders, and countless recommendations for practically every ailment. Online platforms have opened the doors wide for mostly self-appointed gurus and alchemists as well as everyone who believes they have found the wisdom of healing arts in a particularly large measure.
It's astonishing how quickly some self-healing videos disappear after undergoing a professional medical review. I do not hold the opinion that there is always only one way to the goal or that every innovation is wrong.
On the contrary. Every new approach is interesting, but whether it is also innovative and, above all, goal-oriented in the interest of the patient is something that needs to be questioned. In an increasingly opaque jungle of information, offers, and self-appointed institutes, the role of the medical mentor is increasing.
We are increasingly becoming mountain guides on narrow ridges, keeping ourselves fully occupied with continuously updating our own knowledge. But what about healing? First and foremost, it is about seeing the person, listening to them, and learning to recognize where each complaint really comes from.
With the Medicine is such a thing, and most of the time it is different than it seems. Because what torments people and what is really behind it can be the same, but can also diverge significantly. Professional stress radiates into the back and the bumpy communication with beloved in-laws affects the stomach, worries about the overall political situation lead to sleep disorders, and the global growth of incompetence causes digestive problems.
And now conventional medicine is supposed to heal all that, and it fails more than a few times. Then the esotericist, the homeopath and the dowser come into play. That is more than understandable, completely logical and often justified.
When no one wants to listen, and interpersonal communication consists of emojis and swipes, posts and likes, then someone is finally needed to listen again. In healthcare, exactly this listening is too little highlighted. The often-cited cardiologist Professor Bernard Lown already described in 2004 in his book “The Lost Art of Healing” this relevance of listening and genuine communication.
I continuously speak, and almost always positively, about the increasing digitalization of medicine. For me, the primary goal is to use this intelligently to free ourselves from screens and keyboards and to reconnect people with people.
We doctors must shape digitalization in the interest of patients and for the benefit of medicine and not allow ourselves to be harnessed by it. The technology is meant to fulfill redundant, mindless tasks, to enslave itself to the user rather than the other way around. Many health apps are nicely designed, but only a portion of them seem sensible to me, and only a very small fraction is medically relevant.
Can the chronically ill, the lonely, the suffering really be helped by their screen and an app on it? When more and more couples sit silently across from each other in restaurants, staring at their phones, and children, equipped with oversized headphones, are "educated" by tablets instead of playing outside or being creative, I see an increasingly pathological situation in private life due to digitalization, the consequences of which we cannot yet really estimate.
Yes, it was about healing; it has a lot to do with it. I consider an intact and well-maintained circle of friends as the natural alternative to antibiotics. Friends who speak clearly and can endure are a welcome corrective, can be a valve, and form the guardrail for the mind, sometimes even the body.
In the past, a mobile phone was a luxury; today, it's a real conversation. How nice are those minutes, somewhere on a mountain, in a cabin, when there's no reception, when people once again engage with people in the distance, not those online. That in itself is healing.
Being right and being proven right are two different things. It's clear to me as a doctor that the one who benefits the patient has the right to have a say. And not just short-term, not just once, but in the long run. Logically, the art is in recognizing this early, ideally in advance, like in a marriage, signing a contract, or starting a sea voyage.
There they come into play again, intuition, gut feeling, experience, and common sense. From this arises 'Who heals in the long run, is proven right.'
