Suffering gets your attention and demands a response. Sometimes, as we see in the book of Job, it's hard to know exactly how to best respond to the suffering of another person. When the suffering is invisible, such as in conditions like fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue, it is all too easy to be unsympathetic. Many patients with chronic pain or fatigue complain just as much about the lack of compassion others express (including physicians) regarding their invisible condition as they do from physical symptoms. Many patients with chronic illness turn to complementary and alternative therapies such as acupuncture, magnets, or therapeutic touch for relief from their chronic suffering. Western medicine, which is often not even able to agree to the existence of conditions such as chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia, let alone provide relief, is in the midst of a heated debate regarding the scientific merit of these controversial therapies. This is to be expected and the debate for or against the use of these therapies will ultimately be decided by impartial data. Does it work or not? That's all that science cares about. The other major area of controversy surrounding the use of complementary/alternative therapies is the metaphysical baggage and belief systems that are often intertwined with them. This is a more difficult issue for many to resolve than the scientific issue because mere data will not change belief systems. Within Christian circles we are repeatedly warned to avoid these therapies because they are part of New Age beliefs.

What role should science play in suffering? Should therapies which relieve suffering be withheld because science has not yet uncovered their mechanism of action? As a physician whose practice is comprised mostly of patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue I think not. There is now a growing body of scientific research documenting the clinical efficacy of acupuncture, magnets, and even the controversial therapeutic touch. Despite evidence of efficacy many physicians still claim that we should steer patients away from these therapies until a plausible mechanism of action is understood and documented. Is more research needed? Absolutely. However, I cannot in good conscience tell patients, "My science is more important than your suffering." My role is to give patients the best science has to offer through Western medicine and to further help them make good choices where science does not yet have definitive answers. Science should be subservient to suffering and not vice versa. 

What role should theology play in suffering? Should therapies which relieve suffering be withheld because they are often intertwined with New Age beliefs? As a Christian physician I think there are several answers to this controversial question. While eternal destiny is clearly of greater consequence than temporal suffering, ignoring someone's temporal suffering may indeed have eternal consequences. By telling someone not to use effective therapies because of theological conflicts the message conveyed is, "My theology is more important than your suffering." This message is even harder to receive than it is to deliver. For the patient who is suffering it actually makes the forbidden theology more attractive than the one being promoted. Paul's discussion of whether or not to eat meat offered to idols may be a useful analogy in this situation. 

If a Christian knows that the acupuncture points and meridians are actually low resistance electrical pathways and that the use of acupuncture corrects abnormal flow of electrons in the body and causes the release of endorphins are they violating their conscience and imperiling their eternal destiny if they see a practitioner who believes in the Taoist explanation of acupuncture? If their own conscience and eternal destiny are not in danger are they imperiling the practitioner by reinforcing his or her beliefs? What about the Christian who has no understanding of the physiologic basis for acupuncture? Can they go to a Taoist acupuncturist, get relief, and not embrace Taoist philosophy? I think Paul would say that if using acupuncture would violate a weak Christian's conscience or if a strong Christian's use of acupuncture would violate the conscience of either a weak Christian or of a non-Christian then it would in fact be better to suffer than to find temporal relief and potentially sacrifice eternity (for self or someone else). Similarly it would be better to not eat meat offered to idols if it would somehow violate the conscience of the person eating the meat, the conscience of others seated at the table or the conscience of the person providing the meat. However, if acupuncture is understood by both the patient and the practitioner to simply be an effective therapeutic tool whose physiologic actions are devoid of any metaphysical interpretations then I think Paul would embrace it as one of many tools God has provided for the relief of suffering. 

What if a Christian uses meditative techniques to relieve symptoms of chronic illness? Some conservative Christians would argue that because of issues of mind control and because meditation is embraced by Eastern religions that Christianity and meditation are mutually exclusive. On the other hand research has repeatedly documented physiologic and clinical benefits from the use of meditative techniques and there are many meditative approaches that are totally devoid of philosophic trappings. I suspect the apostle Paul would say that the use of a philosophically sterile technique (with proven benefits) to relieve suffering is consistent with God's will. In fact he might go so far as to say that preventing people from using effective, spiritually innocuous, tools to relieve suffering is both legalistic and unchristian. Any theology that places rigid rules above the relief of suffering of people is misguided and alienating. When Jesus chose to heal on the Sabbath he underscored the fact that relieving suffering is more important than legalistic adherence to rules. 

Organized religion has a history of not being receptive to anything, even science, that challenges established beliefs. The observation of Copernicus that the earth was not the center of the universe and the earth in fact revolved around the sun was opposed by the religious community. Are we in essence making the same mistake as the medieval church and ultimately driving people away from the church because we are unable to separate the therapeutic babies from the metaphysical bath water? As Christians we cannot accept New Age philosophies such as channeling, spiritualism, pantheism and others but we must also not be deceived into believing that acupuncture, or other valuable tools belong exclusively to those who believe in New Age philosophies. This is not an either or proposition. We should not let "New Agenoia" trick us into totally rejecting valid therapies that can relieve suffering nor should we use therapies that violate our conscience or that of those around us. 

The history of both science and theology is liberally strewn with suffering caused by rigid adherence to narrowly interpreted rules (prevailing dogma) at the expense of more important and fundamental principles. Let us not forget that science and theology should be used as tools to improve the human condition, not worsen it. It is my sincere hope and prayer that with this perspective our science and our theology can help relieve suffering and not cause it.