Weeks after great curiosity generated by the ordeal of Agnes Msolo, it appears to me that the nation is no closer to comprehending what happened. My verdict is that we assigned to science a task for which it had neither the understanding nor the methodology or tools to execute effectively.
First this is all embedded in the failure by african professionals to generate indigenous solutions to what are strictly indigenous problem contexts. One explanation for Africa’s underdevelopment is said to be the failure by its professionals to question and adapt their predominantly western education and practice to local reality. Instead of using it as a basis for creating authentic solutions to local reality they impose it on local reality. They force reality into a format that is amenable to solution using western orthodox approaches and the result is invariably superficial solutions.
Throughout the period of this incident we have been treated to theories of calcification and the formation of a lithopedion even when it was clear to the human eye that the subject under discussion was a stone formed by geophysical processes. Some have dismissed the narrative of the patient by declaring “I have never come across such a scenario in all my professional life” yet others have declared that the woman’s story can not be supported by medical literature. Should this not be enough motivation to accept that there is a new phenomena that merits serious and comprehensive investigation with an open mind. Is this not an opportunity to write our own books and get others to read what they have never read from any other source.
Secondly, I submit that the reductionist approach in which the analysis were done reflects a fundamental problem and an impoverishment of the whole investigation. Science is characterized by a search for objectivity, quantification, systematic technologies and the determination of solutions to tangible problems. Science posses an inherent inability to deal with subjectivity, is unable to handle extreme complexity and is invariably elitist. A reductionist approach believes understanding is best obtained by breaking wholes/incidents into their fundamental elements. The incident included a stone wrapped in a black cloth that came out of a woman. The analysis of the rock however was reduced to that of any ordinary rock in a geological lab isolated from the mysterious circumstances through which it evolved. Likewise the black cloth was treated as any other piece of cloth at a textile factory isolated from the context of its origin. The inseparability of the stone, the cloth and the patient as components of one problem situation was suspended in this investigation. In so doing the wholeness of the problem was compromised. Consequently the findings by the scientists tell us something about the two items, a rock and a piece of cloth but nothing about the incident
We must admit that our scientists with all the good intentions did not have the tools and methodology for a holistic analysis and diagnosis of the case. The public already knew that the items were a stone and a piece of cloth, they called them so. Their questions centered around their presence in the woman’s womb for a period of time and how they came out without causing injury. The scientific investigations further focused on the size of the uterus, the ovaries and other gynaecological parameters to arrive at their conclusions. In effect they conducted a normative analysis on a case which is not normal. Preoccupied with the reductionist approach of breaking the stone and cloth to their constituent elements, the scientists carried out their investigations oblivious of other valuable evidence requiring further investigation. This includes the fact that Agnes had five other pregnancies before, the information that a chief was informed well before the incident, about a threat by a sister in law to the effect that Agnes was going to give birth to a stone. Indeed the views of contacted traditional healers have not been integrated in the investigations that were done. The only person who has shown critical analysis in this issue is nurse Jean Chipofya. She has used scientific facts to intorragate the conclusions of the scientific investigations. These include the fact that the pregnancy grew from 12 to 20 weeks, there was no blood before and after the delivery.
The scientists have not proved using scientific methods, their conclusion that the woman inserted the two obstacles into her body. This conclusion has merely been deduced from isolated data. The nation is now left with a problem of having to decide on who to believe, the scientists or the patient. Both parties have positions and reputations to protect.
It must be understood that medicine belongs to only one school of thought processes, paradigm (theoretical framework). Different paradigms prioritise different ideals and hence values. The methods and tools professionals use are practical expressions of paradigmatic expressions. These methods make fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality and how to access it.
While science has contributed a lot to human advancement it is not the only form of knowledge or rationality. There are other rationalities; the religious rationality, the traditional rationality and indeed the practical rationality. Medical doctors have been known to allow prayers for the sick in their wards. Indeed some have been known to allow some traditional treatment for their patients. When a patient heals from these interventions what the medical doctor can prove is the medical state of the patient, she cannot however scientifically account for the link between a prayer and the healing process. In one country that I worked there was a donor supported project that treated patients for post war trauma. After running for two years there were a number of recurring cases and evidence of fully recovered patients was scanty. In a village outside this project people were being treated of the same condition through a process of beating drums and bathing in some herbs with very effective and visible results. Eventually the project had to wind up but the highly paid consultant psychologists in the project never accepted the results from the traditional set up, simply because they had no scientific basis.
Dealing with a complex problem like that of Agnes Msolo calls for creative approaches that are not premised on a mechanistic concept of the world in which everything is regular. The mistake we have made is to raise science to the status of a meta knowledge. In life there are a whole range of problems, science is good at solving some of these. some of the real life problems are no go areas for science or science cannot tackle them in isolation from other forms of knowledge. While the paradigm within which science is based can explain advances in economics, physical health, engineering etc, it cannot account for all phenomena or human activity systems. Perhaps it is time we as a nation embraced a school of thought that is based in a higher paradigm, a meta paradigm that encampases a hybrid of scientific, traditional and practical rationalities. This is the challenge for our national institutions, judicial, academic, and political.
Dr Mbuya Isaac G. Munlo.
The author is a development management specialist, well schooled in the old adage “When the only tool you have in your box is a hammer, all problems appear in the form of a nail”
