Photo credit: painting by Peter Triantos.
"Love is the magic bullet of healing," according to the late founder of my chiropractic alma mater, Dr. James W. Parker.
In fact, he spoke often of his "love concept" in health and healing during his weekly mandatory assemblies. As twenty-somethings, we would, for the most part, snicker at this commentary. The cantankerous nature of his delivery — his slipping faculties — further hid the wisdom of his teachings from the ignorance of our youth.
Besides, we were up to our proverbial eyeballs in anatomy, microbiology, biochemistry, and pathology. Who had time to discuss the merits of Dr. Parker's "loving service" and "healing intention" ramblings? Neither professors nor state board examiners were ever to ask us about these. I was right; they never did.
So — how relevant is "love" in healthcare delivery?
What the literature shows (or doesn't)
I decided to search MEDLINE (an electronic online database containing more than 30 million health and biomedical science articles) using a MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) search for the term healing — and found, wait for it, nothing. A further search of Love and Healing in that same 30-million-plus database found six measly, and debatably relevant, articles.
"Medicine is traditionally considered a healing profession, but it has neither an operational definition of healing nor an explanation of its mechanisms," author Thomas Egnew writes in the Annals of Family Medicine. "That medicine has no accepted definition of holistic healing is a curiosity."
So, in terms of the scientific landscape of healthcare, healing isn't even on the radar.
Healing has no operational definition in modern medicine. Love has even less. And yet both shape outcomes in ways the literature is only beginning to acknowledge.
The Greeks described eight different types of love, the most referenced of which include eros (erotic love), philia (deep platonic love between friends), and agape (unconditional love).
A clinical checklist for love
Entering my 21st year in practice, here's my best take.
The theoretical ideal would be to provide care completely selflessly, altruistically, and unconditionally — the agape love. While unrealistic as a continuous course, I do believe that opportunities of true selflessness exist, which can be transcendent for both the patient and the doctor.
More realistically, love is delivered by first appreciating the patient, their values, and their beliefs. An authentic relationship is then cultivated through a spirit of equality (philia, or brotherly love). Caring and empathy naturally emerge through this egalitarian bond of mutual respect and understanding.
Imagine a checklist for doctors and clinics as follows:
- Are we grateful for this patient?
- Do we acknowledge and appreciate this patient?
- Do we understand what it is that they value?
- Have we incorporated their values and beliefs into their treatment?
- Have we attempted to understand this patient's pain or suffering?
- Have we attempted to communicate clearly and authentically?
- Do we fundamentally view this patient as an equal in this relationship?
I might even argue that if a checklist like this was coupled to a well-controlled study, the outcome of love could be measured.
As the chronic disease crisis continues to loom large in the primary care landscape, the need to rethink the nature of the doctor-patient relationship is in order.
Was Dr. Parker right in asserting that "love was the magic bullet of healing"? Twenty-one years in practice, I'm not actually sure if he was right — but I'm almost positive he wasn't wrong.
