Alternative Medicine: The Deceptive Damage of Harmless Treatments

In a standard tumor board – think cancer conference – an atypical case was brought forth that left the health-care practitioners divided. The case was standard to begin with: a woman in her thirties found a small bump in her breast, which was classified as indeterminable (somewhere between benign and cancerous). The doctors agreed on what to do next: remove the tumor with a simple biopsy, followed by radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Her odds of survival were high, nearly 97%, yet this woman chose not to pursue her doctor’s recommended path and instead sought out alternative medicine (AM). For three years, the woman drank teas, ate organic foods, rubbed herbs all over her body, and visited numerous “healers.” By the time the woman went back to conventional medicine, it was far too late. Her tumor had grown from 1 centimeter to 6 centimeters, and attached to her chest wall. In addition, she showed symptoms of palpable axillary lymph nodes and metastases. Her case went from Stage I treatable breast cancer to Stage IIIC invasive breast cancer with very low chance of survival. Her choice to forego conventional medicine had cost her many things, including a divorce and custody of her three children, and above all, it cost her life.

This woman's case is an extreme in terms of dependence, but it is not necessarily odd in terms of practice. Between 40% to 70% of cancer patients use a form of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) alongside their conventional cancer treatments (CCT). Additionally, about one out of three adults utilize AM, making it a $34 billion industry. Seeking out nonconventional pain relief is not abnormal, regardless of causes or levels of pain. But we should be asking why that is the case. Why do cancer patients, those with chronic illness, and regular adults opt for alternative medicine in lieu of or in addition to modern methods?

Most people who turn to AM partake in holistic medicine, like acupuncture and yoga, to deal with pain. Cancer patients use these practices to counterbalance the side effects from chemotherapy; those with chronic illness or otherwise healthy individuals also use them for similar pain-relieving benefits. Numerous studies have shown that these practices have greatly improved the quality of life for cancer patients but have virtually no effect on their cancer progression.

Other forms of alternative medicine, such as spiritual healing and natural remedies, also do not typically have a negative effect on the patient (unless products in the natural supplements interfere with a patient’s medication). While alternative medicine and its various branches are essentially placebos – they have neither positive nor negative effects, but the user perceives a difference – the real harm lies in the attitudes surrounding these methods. For some people, alternative medicine can consume their life.

“Cult medicine.” This is what a doctor present at the tumor board for the case of the cancerstricken woman later described the practice of AM. In all major ways, AM treatments resemble that of a spiritual cult: a leader who proclaims to know more, a believer who is isolated from their friends and family, and a scheme that provides hope at exorbitant fees. The most infamous quack doctor to this effect was Harry M. Hoxsey. This cult leader of sorts was estimated to make nearly $1.5 million during the height of his scheme in the 20th century. His panacea was an herbal paste that he claimed was passed down from his great grandfather and used on thousands of patients. Unfortunately, one of the main ingredients to his cancer remedy was arsenic, a flesh-eating and otherwise toxic chemical. If his patients survived cancer, they would die due to his “cure.” However, that did not stop most people. Hoxsey often held rallies and speeches akin to religious gatherings. Even today, despite the numerous legal battles brought against Hoxsey with the government and scientific-evidence to refute his claims, the Hoxsey method still exists as an alternative to CCT (though the treatment no longer contains arsenic). In fact, the woman discussed by the tumor board who refused traditional treatment used the Hoxsey method among other AM to “treat” her cancer.

Despite these factors, the woman’s decision was, after all, her decision. It is not uncommon for someone to deny cancer treatment, especially considering its severe side effects. However, there is something fundamentally different between someone who refuses medical treatment and someone who refuses it in lieu of alternative medicine. For example, a widow in her 80’s – the most common demographic for patients who refuse care – was diagnosed with lung cancer. Similar to that of the 30-year-old woman, her case was very treatable and offered a high chance of survival, and this woman also refused treatment. However, instead of seeking alternative treatments, the widow simply resigned to her fate: “I’m alone. I’ve lived a good life, but I miss my husband. I’m happy with what my life has been. I don’t want treatment.” The expectations of these two similar cases are what define them. The young mother refused treatment expecting to live, while the widow refused treatment expecting to die of her cancer.

The tragedy of the false expectations brought on through AM is best illustrated in the famous case of Kathy Acker, a feminist writer diagnosed with breast cancer at 48. After finding a cancerous tumor in her breast, she requested a double mastectomy against her doctor’s advice and refused radiotherapy and chemotherapy claiming, “I was terrified of cancer. I feared chemotherapy more.” She later recounted the surgery in a Guardian article called “The Gift of Disease,” where she explained how the experience marked the tipping point for her total denial of conventional medicine: “I realized that if I remained in the hands of conventional medicine, I would soon be dead, rather than diseased, meat…When I walked out of that surgeon’s office, I thought that I might be about to die, to die without any idea why. My death, and so my life, would be meaningless.”

Determined to give her life meaning, Acker consulted a number of “healers” who instructed her to will the cancer away with her mind. Greg Schelkun, chief among them, instructed her that if she could resolve a regression in her past or past life, she would be able to find out what caused her cancer and would be able to heal herself. Nearly four months later, she claimed to be cancer-free.

In the last two years of her life, her health deteriorated greatly. She was not able to digest food, could not walk for more than a few blocks, and whittled away to just under 100 pounds. She attempted to seek more care at an alternative cancer clinic in Tijuana, but they could not admit her because her cancer was too advanced. Eventually, she died in a similar clinic surrounded by a handful of friends (many became estranged due to her refusal to seek conventional care) in a room she dubbed “Room 101” after a torture scene from George Orwell’s 1984. At age 50, barely a year after claiming to be cancer-free, Kathy Acker lost her fight.

Acker’s attitudes towards AM, especially her “cure,” are destructive not only to herself but to others facing chronic or life-threatening illness. Hank Green, an author and vlogger with ulcerative colitis, remarked on how harmful even simple comments like “you should try X treatment” are to his mental health, since “what I’m hearing is not ‘take it easy, we support you.’ Instead, I’m hearing ‘I have the secret to your wellness and if only you had the courage and fortitude to implement it, you would no longer be sick.” New York Times columnist and ovarian cancer fighter, Susan Gubar, has dubbed the movement the “heal-yourself-with-a-positive-attitude movement.” This type of thinking, Gubar claims, is simply victim blaming – it implies that those who have cancer got it in order to resolve some issue in their life, and those who recover are somehow better than those who die from their cancer. In response to Acker’s “Gift of Disease,” Gubar replies that “cancer is not a gift I would want to give or receive.”

If anyone could see the truth in this, it would be the doctors who treat cancer patients on a daily basis. Whether it’s a patient like the 80-year old widow or someone like Kathy Acker, doctors must accept the decisions of their patients, and that takes a toll. Doctors, especially cancer specialists, work with patients everyday who fight tirelessly for their lives, so seeing a patient who could be easily cured refuse treatment or seek unsubstantiated cures in AM can be disheartening. As Dr. Vic Velanovich from the University of South Florida puts it, “Unlike any other disease, the federal government declared a war on cancer, so with all this effort, how could you possibly refuse treatment?”

A question of this nature was posed to the tumor group that was discussing the 30-year-old mother’s case: was her decision to refuse treatment ultimately a failing of the healthcare system? The room was split. On one side, physicians argued that the woman was fully informed of her condition and options and, despite the advice of her doctors and the wishes of her family, refused conventional treatment. The other half of physicians said that they would take such a case to be a failing on themselves as doctors for not being able to convince the patient to pursue conventional medical treatment. A similar sentiment was aired by Sean Ransom, the psychologist who dealt with the case of the 80-year-old widow. To him, “at the time, it felt like a failure, but I would treat her much differently today than I did then… [what] I needed to do [was] to be of greatest service to her – regardless of what that service needed to be.” That is the reality today. Alternative medicine cannot be barred against, just as much as conventional treatments cannot be forced upon patients. Doctors find themselves in this grey area: willing to help the patient by all means possible but forced to allow for the harm they might put themselves through.