Gulliver among the Lilliputians?

Occasionally, people come to the fore and demand our attention either by their words, or more commonly, by their deeds. There is never a shortage of the type who make all sorts of promises and deliver nothing. It is therefore all the more notable when we encounter people of true conviction. This week saw the passing of a remarkable lady who did much for the care of patients with advanced breast cancer. At a time when the whole subject of care is under the spotlight more than ever, Pat Pilkington ought to have been held up as a bright light. As co-founder of the Penny Brohn Cancer Centre in Bristol in 1975, she dared to take on the methods of medical profession. Never a body which can be accused of openness to change, the medical profession could scarcely conceal their contempt for this lady who dared to consider cancer treatment in a different way. The care of patients with secondary breast cancer is something I have experienced at first hand. Some good, some not so good. Until Pat Pilkington came along, the medics would chop it out, poison it with chemotherapy or give you even more poison if you could bear it. Pat recognised the futility of such an approach. She saw what I saw when I was caring for my first wife. The treatment of the whole person in terms of their mind, body and spirit had to run alongside any treatment. When I write this, it is patently obvious but back in the 1970s, cancer treatment was a far cry from the treatment of today. Her approach has not yet been universally taken up because I have experienced those who still resist the concept of treating the whole person. Evidence based medicine operates on the premise that any given treatment must have a proven evidence base in order to be accepted by mainstream medicine. How many people do you know who swear by the benefits of acupuncture, aromatherapy, reflexology and the like? I know loads of people with and without cancer whose lives are transformed by such approaches. Just because we can't explain the science behind these therapies doesn't mean we should be resistant to them. True to form, the medical profession sought to discredit Pat and the great work she was doing in Bristol. She dared to question the paternalistic attitude which told the patient to shut up and take the medicine because the doctor knows best. I still encounter this attitude as I progress through my career but thankfully not as often as I did a decade ago. In order to try and discredit Pat Pilkington, a study was published comparing health outcomes of patients in Bristol with patients from London. As often happens though, the establishment chose to compare apples to oranges in a desperate attempt to discredit the incorporation of complementary medicine. Pat Pilkington used an approach from which the establishment could learn a great deal. Her approach was based on good old fashioned common sense. She espoused a healthy diet, gentle exercise, massages, relaxation techniques, visualisation techniques and group therapy sessions. It is all very well for the establishment to rubbish this approach but they would be better placed to make such judgments if they first witnessed the effects for themselves. If they did, they would have seen the transforming effect on patients. We all owe this remarkable lady so much because it is always the hardest thing to effect change. She was a pioneer and a very brave one at that. Her contribution to care can not be underestimated. This week, another public figure continued his project of change against a background of resistance. Pope Francis has already surprised many within the Vatican since his election. It is hard not to admire a man who has the courage of his convictions. He acknowledges that his church has become wrapped up in small-minded rules. It would be difficult to imagine any other leader in world faith being so brutally honest. He also says it is useless to talk only of gay marriage, contraception and abortion. His approach is like a breath of fresh air and his church is lucky to have such a visionary leader. He rightly reminds his church that they must ditch their exclusive approach in favour of inclusiveness. Whether his church chooses to listen is a matter for them but they can't have been given clearer or better leadership. A shadow minister is today reported as claiming that people who earn £60,000 per year aren't rich. Clearly, such an assertion rather depends on your definition of rich. That said, in purely Maslowian terms I should have thought I could just about get by on a small fraction of that amount - for the past decade I have! More worryingly, it illustrates the disconnect which exists between our political elite and the people whom they pertain to represent. This is a huge worry because it will only serve to further disenfranchise an already weary electorate. Choose your next words carefully! I think the present Pope and the recently deceased Pat Pilkington have a much better grasp of what rich really means. The 1965 song "turn, turn, turn" by the Byrds was almost entirely transcribed from the book of Ecclesiastes. The song is often cited as a plea for world and inner peace. Aside from the peerless delivery by the legendary Byrds, the message is as strong today as it was nearly half a century ago. As the lyric goes, "I swear it's not too late"! It was said when Don Bradman toured England with the Australians in 1930 that he was "Gulliver among the Lilliputians" such was the gulf in ability between himself and all the other players. In the game of life, Pat Pilkington was another Gulliver whose legacy will only be realised with the passage of time.