Cure Versus Care

Discussing alternative streams of medicine comes naturally to the Mumbai-based Nagral family. Parents, Kumud and Sangameshwar, took an integrated course in ayurveda and allopathy in the ’50s. Son Sanjay is a consultant at Mumbai’s Jaslok Hospital and his wife, Aabha, a consultant hepatologist.

Sangameshwar fails to understand why the two systems should be so differentiated, ‘‘When the first medical courses were started in India, in 1822, at the Calcutta College of Medicine, the course had both ayurveda and allopathy,’’ he claims. ‘‘Only when Lord McCaulay formulated the educational policy in 1835, was allopathy isolated for study,’’ he adds.

His 37-year-old daughter-in-law Aabha agrees, ‘‘Though I don’t see it as a complete science I believe it would be useful for allopaths to know ayurveda,’’ she says, revealing that she does prescribe ayurvedic medicines for problems like jaundice and constipation. Sanjay too is against strict categorisation. ‘‘It would be wrong to expect ayurvedic doctors, who are often the only healthcare providers in villages not to use marvellously effective allopathic cures for problems like malaria. Most ayurvedic doctors use allopathic medicines, anyway!’’

Integration, however, brings to the fore the question of scientific parameters. ‘‘What needs to be done is more and more scientific testing of ayurvedic drugs, a thing I would love to do in my hospital,’’ says Aabha while her husband is quick to argue, ‘‘You can’t say that every drug should be proven on parameters laid down by allopathy. Aren’t there many things in allopathy that are not scientific? And if we know, for instance, that Tulsi can help cure cough, is there anything wrong in using it?’’ Kumud brings up another point when she says, ‘‘Modern drugs are full of toxic chemicals. One has to accept the safety and efficacy of ayurvedic medicines,’’

Sangameshwar adds that with the popularity of ayurvedic drugs many pharmaceutical companies have begun to scientifically test ayurvedic medicines. Sanjay feels, however, that ‘‘the number of ayurvedic drugs tested are probably very few.’’

With all its scientific advances then, is allopathy the better stream? ‘‘It’s difficult to say either this or that is good,’’ hedges Aabha while Sanjay tries to put things into perspective, ‘‘Today, you’re looking at two kinds of quackery. For every ayurvedic doctor who claims to cure cancer, (that’s a tall claim!) we have an allopath who performs unwanted operations, prescribes diagnostic tests and drugs unnecessarily. The conflict is not between an old system and modern medicine, it is between scientific and non-scientific treatment.’’ Sangameshwar goes on to discuss another aspect, ‘‘Because of the toxic effects of allopathy, people turn towards ayurveda.’’ ‘‘That and the inability of allopathy to cure certain diseases,’’ his wife chips in. ‘‘I use ayurveda even in post-operative care.’’ Sangameshwar continues, ‘‘Starting the patient off on regular antibiotics, I later switch over to ayurvedic antiseptic products, to dilute the toxic effect.’’ By this time, all four are realy fired by the argument, not one showing signs of a hard day’s work behind them.

Sanjay holds on to the point that the main problem is the alleged lack of regulation, ‘‘We need better healthcare. With 70 per cent, given through private hospitals and only 30 per cent through the government, healthcare is not being regulated strictly. In Europe, for instance, one cannot just start a clinic without going through stringent measures. In India, anyone starts ayurvedic clinic.’’

The conversation has carried late into the night. Which is better? The question hangs in the air. Ask Abha if she would advise their daughter to be an ayurveda doctor and she says firmly, ‘‘No. It is still more prestigious and fashionable for the best students to study allopathy, though one can’t predict the trend many years from now.’’