Healing practices throughout history, and in the resent, have been and are varied and complex. Discussion of a few of these practices may add insight into the concept of holistic healing. The reliability of these reports is often difficult to judge since data gathering methods are not often discussed. Healing for early Egyptians, Indians, Iranians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans related to the gods. Diseases were typically thought to occur when the gods were angered. Charms, herbs, magic, and sacrifices were used to appease them. Sometimes the gods who specifically related to healing represented joy, love, and music.
Anger related to disease and happiness to health (Jayne, 1995). Historically, healing in China was tied to ancestors and religion. Explanations for illness related to loss of harmony with the environment, loss of harmony with people, and loss of internal harmony (Unschuld, 1995). Originating from ancient Chinese medicine, modern Japanese medicine stressed the individual’s duty to stay healthy, with proper diet, exercise, and a harmonious balance with the environment. Disease could be internally or externally caused and treatment focused on achieving balance.
Prevention was stressed and at times patients stopped paying their doctors when they were sick, as it was their function to help keep them well. A sense of wholeness and harmony with the environment is a frequent theme. Klienman and Sung (1989) conducted cross cultural studies in Taiwan and China, discussing two separate healing functions; one was the control of sickness, and the other was the provision of meaning for the individual’s experience by helping the client determine what is involved in the illness beyond the purely physical dimensions.
Satisfaction with the indigenous healer was usually high, even when the disease did not improve. The patient felt better in the second function of healing even if not in the first, and was satisfied. Modern and indigenous healing demonstrate some reported consistencies, but reliable research is difficult to obtain and it is unknown whether it is directly applicable to people brought up with different cultures.
It seems important first to explore what the experience of healing is to the individual in a culture, and then to look for similarities or differences between different cultures. Strengths and Limitations of Related Research The most frequent discussions about healing have occurred in layman’s literature (Benson, 1994; Cousins, 1993; Dossey, 1994; Frank, 1993; Jaffe, 2000; Locke & Colligan, 1996; Pearsall, 1997; Pelletier, 1997; Siegel, 1996).
These books are often based on the author’s clinical experience with empirical data that are inappropriately used or of poor quality. Healing itself is not clearly defined. This literature is popular, apparently appealing to some intuitive sense of holistic healing. Many of the ideas are worthy of note, but it is important not to accept them as accurate until they are scientifically tested. The data that have been used to support these theories often do not mention healing directly.
Some examples of outcome measures were survival beyond two years, reduction of skin rashes or blood pressure, and increased hematocrit, cortisol or natural killer cells. Measures that seem more closely related to holistic healing, such as uncomplicated wound healing, quality of life after illness, and rate of physical recovery were less frequently used as outcome measures. Even these measures tapped only part of the typical conceptualisations of holistic healing that included a broader range of emotional, cognitive, physiological and behavioural changes.