Seeing Isn’t Believing?

Usually, the validity of theories is debunked once evidence suggesting the opposite exists. The same could not be said for the usage of beta-blockers in heart treatment. Theoretically, beta-blockers slow the straining heart in order to minimize oxygen consumption (NYT). Thus, beta-blockers have been widely prescribed in treating heart problems involving clotted arteries that could lead to heart attacks (NYT). What we learn from the textbooks do not necessarily translate to the actual mechanisms of the human body. It is one thing for studies to offer additional and supplementary information and another to have a study present information that counters the conventional scientific theories.

What is even more discomforting is that studies have suggested beta-blockers to act in the opposite direction compared to what they should theoretically be doing for our body. Instead of saving lives as intended, the beta-blockers “caused a definite increase in heart failure.” (NYT) Despite such opposing data, doctors had still prescribed beta-blockers after the study (NYT). Although, as of April 1, 2009, beta-blockers will no longer be a government advised form of treatment, this situation have sparked some interesting questions. As David Newman, writer for the New York Times article, asked, “ Can we handle what the evidence reveals? Are we ready for the truth?” But more realistically, are we willing to let go of what we have believed in for so long? Thus, what is the most troubling is the inconsistency between application and theoretical science. After all, much of today’s successful medical advancements work in accordance to scientific theories. If today’s theories could be replaced by study results, then these results could also be replaced in the future. How reliable scientific information are is still uncertain and thus study results also should not be emphasized more than theoretical science.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/