I would like to report that when I refer to "prevention" I mean prevention against illness. But I don't mean that. I mean prevention against prevention.
Unfortunately, in its effort to separate itself from Holistic Medicine, Mainstream Medicine -- or possibly, government supported by Pharma -- has declared prevention eventually illegal.
Eventually illegal. It's an absurd thought, but it happens a lot in our society.
For example, here in California -- where I often reside -- it was illegal to talk on a handheld cell phone while driving, but at the same time it was not illegal to text on one. How absurd! Of course, everyone knew that eventually texting while driving would not be legal. But for a few months anyway, the assumption was that it was not likely to kill anybody because it was legal.
Fortunately, as every good scientist knows, incremental change is adaptive and can therefore make any kind of horrific event increasingly tolerable. This is because the adjusted comparatives shift the proverbial bar of acceptability. In other words" we get used to it.
So, whenever the powers that be want to enforce major changes, they know enough to "get us used to" one legislation before introducing another.
Perhaps I am being assumptive here. Perhaps there are still loads of people texting behind the wheel and even more who knew it was dangerous even before it was illegal. But my eventual point has more to do with the politics of prevention, than safety and prevention themselves.
You see, I am in the unique position of working with autism using the therapy (or stress reduction training modality) of neurofeedback world-wide.
Those of us working with this very exciting brain teaching tool are board certified under either the natural therapy spiritual healer model or the mainstream medical model.
As for me, I am board certified in both. This should mean that I'm doubly knowledgeable in the art and science of my chosen profession. In fact, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that I'm better prepared than the next gal to not be sued. Either that or because of the clash in concepts of the legal and professional ethics within the two boards, I'm more likely to be sued. I'm not sure which. Unfortunately, there is no real way to discern the correct answer to that question.
When I first began working within the mental health field I was naive enough to believe that the rules and laws pertaining to patients and clients were based upon what was right and/or wrong for said patients and clients.
Instead, the rules for ethical operation are opposite in each. To correctly follow one is to break the rules of the other.
One says I MUST ask intake questions, while the other says I am NOT allowed to.