Medical Experts and the Stewardship of the Body

Taking care of our bodies shouldn’t be rocket science. The gift of life doesn’t come with “Instructions for Use” that require a Ph.D. in physiology. For the most part, instinct and common sense do just fine: eat to satisfy your hunger and no more; choose palatable foods that make you feel well (in the short and long term); exercise sufficiently to keep nimble and strong for your daily activities; get enough sleep to operate well the next day; etc.

Things that require less obvious knowhow are usually of the kind that can be easily learned and transmitted to one another (“this mushroom is OK to eat; that one is not”). Generally-speaking, it is for extreme accidents of nature (illnesses and traumas) that specialized advice and care is needed. “Feeding a cold and starving a fever” may not always be the best course of action if the fever is from malaria or the cold from hypothyroidism. In the case of serious disease, seeking professional advice is also part of the stewardship of the body.

But we live in a funny age, in which we have decided that expert knowledge is necessary even for the most basic stuff. As a cardiologist, I am routinely sounded for dietary advice by perfectly healthy people, as if knowing the proper way to eat requires years of schooling and postgraduate training! I am flattered by the request, and I always enjoy the conversation, but these kinds of questions manifest a very strong societal trend, which is to place under examination the most basic and natural acts of our lives and to put specialists in charge of telling us how to put one foot in front of the other.

Perhaps things are changing, though. In regards to dietary advice, the “heart healthy” diets recommended by medical experts only a few years ago have come under serious question. The “food pyramid” that was a beacon of public health policy is all but collapsed. New recommendations are being issued every other week, it seems. And these diverse opinions so contradict one another that the medical and nutrition experts are looking more and more like the snake oil salesmen of old.

But if we’ve let ourselves be led astray on the topic of food, how much more confused have we become on the topic of our sexuality and reproduction! Yet what is more instinctive than the sexual act and what is more natural than the menstrual cycle? Too many of us fall prey to the misguided—if not nefarious–opinion, coming from the Institute of Medicine (and sanctioned by the Affordable Care Act’s mandate) that ingesting large amounts of hormones contributes to reproductive health, or that vasectomies and salpingectomies are a form of “preventive medicine.” Experts they may be, but the M.D.’s and Ph.D.’s behind these “public health” initiatives are not wise stewards of the community.

Let us hope that here too, the tide of deception will turn. At the recent extraordinary synod on the family in Rome, several couples have made impassioned pleas to raise awareness of the harms of contraception and sterilization. And of course, the harm is to the entire person, not just the body. Natural family planning, mindful of the beautiful and precious gift of life, is the only cogent way to raise families that fosters good stewardship of the environment, of the beloved, and of our own bodies.