Clinical Partnership

“Doctor…you and me, we are a bit the same, I am the number one Ngangkari on the APY Lands, number

one Ngangkari on all APY lands and you are number one doctor! You always go around putting things in,

I always go around taking things out. Yeah, you are number one doctor and I am number one Ngangkari!”

(Traditional Healer, cited in Panzironi 2013, p. 122).

In parts of the Northern Territory and South Australia, the relationship between Ngankari and western medical practitioners is not by any accounts a new concept, rather interactions between these two professions can be traced back to the mission days (Panzironi 2013). Although this relationship was very informal, oftentimes within a clinical setting the Ngangkari would be called in to assist when a community member was ill (Panzironi 2013). Here they would use techniques that were proven as being complimentary to western theoretical constructs (NPY 2013; Panzironi 2013).

The utility of Ngangkari was formally recognised in the 1970’s, when the SA Health

Department suggested that it should be policy to employ a fulltime Ngangkari to work

alongside its mainstream medical staff (Panzironi 2013). While this was outwardly

admirable, it necessitated the Ngangkari to practice from within a hierarchical and

bureaucratic system, whereby the adoption of a 9am to 5pm regime greatly conflicted

with their community responsibilities and the ability for Ngangkari to maintain their

cultural obligations (Panzironi 2013). Subsequently this program was deemed to be

unsuccessful and it wasn’t until 1983, after the Nganampa Health Council took over the

provision of health services from the South Australian Health Commission, that a

partnership between Ngangkari and western medicine again commenced (Panzironi 2013).

The literature suggests that “western medical practitioners acknowledge the Ngnagkari working in a clinic

complementaryrole of Ngangkari in the provision of health care and the complementary

nature of Ngangkari interventions” (Panzironi 2013, p. 123). Similarly to how Ngangkari are

unable to treat disorders associated with lifestyle disease and drug and alcohol addiction, biomedical practices also have their limitations:

“…we had some business recently where it was outside of the range of health professionals;

it would have been really good to have a Ngangkari there because it was family business problems

and it wasn’t something that we could deal with, we didn’t have the skills to deal with these kind

of business problems, that was making the person sick. So the person whose problem it was, she

drew what the problem was on a piece of paper and said ‘this is what it is’, which was allot of circle

and lines. And she said ‘this is my problem’. And I said, ‘I am sorry, I don’t understand what this means’.

And she said ‘a Ngangkari would understand this’. And I said ‘sorry, I am a white fella and I don’t

understand, we need to find you a Ngangkari’…”

(Medical Practitioner, cited in Panzironi 2013, p. 125).

This Doctor-Ngangkari relationship is a perfect example of how effectively two completely and necessarily different systems of health care, can work side by side (NPY 2013). What remains is why it is that this collaborative team based approach is not emulated across the country, where the inclusion of the traditional healers of the respective lands from which the mainstream medical health service are situated, can greatly compliment western medical practices (Panzironi 2013).

Ngangkari working in the bush

“I think collaboration, yes collaboration truly. I think it a collaborative approach where I think they

help me do what I need to do and I don’t know if I – I don’t think they need any help from me –

but they (Ngangkari) are certainly helpful in progressing what I think needs to be happening”.

(Medical Practitioner, cited in Panzironi 2013, p. 127).

Furthermore, the literature suggests that “a two way consultation approach is considered to be beneficial for a more comprehensive assessment and management of patients’ health conditions and treatment options” (Panzironi 2013, p. 128).