“Holistic” Care for Stroke in the Context of the Current Health Care Bureaucracy and Economic Reality

Abstract

The target paper by Sharon Kaufman argues that modern Western health care delivery is characterized by “the coexistence of two conflicting conceptual frameworks,” namely a “holistic” approach that attempts to take into account the cultural and personal needs of the individual stroke patient and “medicalization” that attempts to reduce people and their illnesses to biological processes which can then be treated through “evidence-based” biomedical approaches. Although it is true that these 2 approaches often coexist and are sometimes in conflict, it would be misleading to see these as totally dichotomous. Patients want holistic approaches less than we give them credit for, and physicians are less mechanical than such a dichotomy would suggest. In fact, more often than not, patients and their health care providers combine to engender unrealistic expectations about what modern medicine is actually able to accomplish. When the system breaks down, as it often does in stroke (with a patient who is still left with a significant impairment an disability as well as unresolved concerns and issues related to his or her often catastrophic loss of function), there is a certain inevitable backlash. However, this tension between holistic expectations and the medical response is overshadowed by institutional constraints on clinical decision making that are designed to manage or balance expectations of both patients and health care professionals with economic realities and, in doing so, often run rough-shod over the “holistic” needs of patients and their families as well as health care providers’ attempts to manage disease and disability within a medical framework.

Keywords:

• biomedical
• disability
• holistic
• rehabilitation
• stroke