Click the picture below for the video.
Janet Albrechtsen’s article on Elle Macpherson's cancer journey in The AUSTRALIAN (14/09/2024) reflects the broader tension between mainstream and alternative medicine, but it also unfairly attacks Macpherson for choosing a holistic path. Albrechtsen's choice of phrases like "wellness nonsense," "dangerous," and "crackpot advice" contributes to a divisive discourse that dismisses holistic approaches without considering the nuance in individual cases. Macpherson, who has publicly defended her decision to shun chemotherapy and radiation, did so after consulting with many doctors and opting for treatments that aligned with her beliefs about health and wellness. Her decision to share this journey, as she states, is not about advising others but about sharing her personal experience and choice—a critical distinction often lost in these critiques.
While mainstream medicine, with its emphasis on chemotherapy, radiation, and pharmaceuticals, undoubtedly saves lives and has robust clinical evidence, it is also worth noting that some patients—like Macpherson—explore integrative approaches that combine conventional and alternative treatments. Macpherson, after undergoing a lumpectomy, chose holistic therapies such as naturopathy and lifestyle changes, which she felt supported her recovery. While she has been criticized by medical experts for potentially promoting unproven treatments, it is clear that her approach worked for her, at least for the time being.
Albrechtsen's critique also ignores the broader context of patient autonomy and the right to explore options beyond what is recommended by conventional medicine. Macpherson’s choice to embrace an “intuitive, heart-led, holistic approach” after receiving conventional medical advice highlights a personal decision-making process that weighs physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Albrechtsen’s language, branding Macpherson’s holistic journey as “quackery” and associating her wellness brand with profiteering, not only undermines the complexity of personal health choices but also diminishes the value of educating the public about natural therapies that definitely complement conventional treatments.
Moreover, Albrechtsen’s focus on Macpherson’s celebrity status and accusations that she is merely "flogging her book" devalue the conversations surrounding integrative medicine. Celebrities have the platform to bring attention to lesser-known therapies, and while celebrity endorsements can certainly be used for commercial gain, they can also stimulate necessary debates about healthcare choices. Macpherson has sparked awareness and discussion about cancer treatment options, which can empower individuals to make informed decisions. The critique that she is "vulgar" and "all about making money" seems to ignore the potential for open dialogue and the benefit of more patient-centred approaches to health.
In short, Albrechtsen's attack on Elle Macpherson fails to consider the complexity of cancer treatment decisions, the importance of patient autonomy, and the evolving landscape of nutritional, complementary and integrative medicine. Macpherson’s approach, while not chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery, is part of a broader movement in healthcare that seeks to integrate the best of both mainstream and natural medicine. Rather than labeling her choices as dangerous or nonsensical, it would be more constructive to encourage balanced, evidence-based discussions that respect diverse healing journeys.
As a qualified physician in nutritional medicine and cancer patient management, I deplore the attitude of Australian journalists who believe it is their responsibility to denigrate individuals who hold an opinion that contradicts the mainstream. They are the real enemies of open and truthful intellectual discourse.
Ian Brighthope
it's vile to attack a cancer survivor just because she took a slightly different path to healing.
The irony of criticising her about potential motives around making money when the alternative they promote is the single most lucrative big pharma, toxic pile of crap with zero nuance or individualisation, typical