The bigger picture: There are many different philosophies, schools and practices for healing. There always have been, and should continue to be. No one perspective has a monopoly on care, insight, considered answers or evidence of success.
Yet, an argument ensues suggesting that the overriding allopathic tradition (the practice of our GPs and doctors in hospitals) is "more right" and "distinctly better", and that all other perspectives are foolhardy, even dangerous. Not only does the evidence not stack up, but attempts to dismiss different, yet credible, points of view is genuinely dangerous.
Distortions in reality occur in many sectors of society. When such distortions are institutionally enforced, systematic inequalities develop. As a result, we all suffer, even simply, from the knock-on effect of being denied proper information about what's real and what's possible in human experience.
Most hurtful of all is the fact that such distortions are often fuelled by a political agenda. The attack on holistic medicines by allopathy is no exception. And so it becomes necessary to clarify why these two traditions are so different and if they are truly irreconcilable.
You would be forgiven for believing the animosity between these two sectors has arisen from an insurmountable disagreement in philosophy. Indeed, this forms a significant part of the dispute.
Allopathic medicine can be classified by the idea that the cure to disease comes from its opposite. This is in particular contrast to homeopathy, which believes a disease is cured by its similar.
So, if you have a disease that brings about a fever, an allopath will administer something that makes the body colder, thus reducing the fever and declaring a success against disease. Homeopaths, however, argue that the body further responds to the administered treatment, resulting in a deeper expression of the original symptoms over time.
While this point in itself creates an interesting debate, what really sets allopathy apart from the holistic traditions is the idea that the body does not know what to do when most basic levels of illness arise, and so intervention is always required and most often not harmful.
This point of philosophy, indeed religion, really distinguishes the two schools of healing. For example, eastern religions tend to share the idea that any profound power in the universe worthy of being defined "God" also exists within the human being. Thus, enlightment is the realisation of our connection to that power, and therefore fundamentally with everything around us.
In contrast, western religions hold firmly the belief that "God" is a power distinct from and superior to human beings. While humans can be created, inspired and manipulated by it, they can never realise it.
Our healing traditions reflect these ideas. As eastern thinking believes the human body possesses the ability to ward off dangers and heal itself, its healing traditions have developed to strengthen, empower and mobilise the body's own healing system. Responsibility and prevention are key. Interventions are against habits that weaken and damage the body's defences.
In contrast, western medicines place greater importance on doctors, illnesses and treatments, rather than the underlying state of health of the individual.
Illness is the inevitable result of an inadequate body. Not only can it not protect itself from "attacks" by "superior" microscopic organisms, but it will sometimes destroy itself for no apparent reason.
"Health", thus, requires intervention of a greater power - our doctor's expertise and the drugs they prescribe. Cure is defined by the disappearance of symptoms.
However, these two philosophies were not always so distinct. Hippocrates, the indisputable "father" of allopathy, is better described as a naturopath. He believed the human body had a great capacity to heal itself, that first and foremost we should look to nature for answers, and that health resulted not from treatments but from building up the body's natural immunity.
He paid close attention to diet and prevention, observed each case individually, treated the person as a whole, and opposed the categorisation of illnesses into diagnoses and formulaic treatment. Most of all, his principal of "first do no harm" was against the administration of toxic drugs. So what of medicine in the last 2,400 years? The more modern efforts to pursue wealth, power and land in the West have deeply affected not only our religious, but also our medical beliefs. It is from this history that we get the ideas of "superiority" over "inferiority", mutually exclusive pure "good" and pure "evil", and "domination" as a value. These are now reflected in our dominant system of healing.
In next week's column, I will consider the information we receive about the successes and failures of each side, and the driving force behind domination - the pharmaceutical industry.
Shalini Sinha works as a life coach and counsellor and presents the intercultural programme, Mono, on RTÉ Television.