| "Bush medicine" is non-ritualized herbal self-treatment among many rural Caribbean villagers. For the people of Bwa Mawego, Commonwealth of Dominica, home-based treatment with bush medicine is typically the first line of medical care. In contrast with biomedical and magical means of healing, bush medicine is free, easily accessible, and allows the villager to manage his own care.;This Dominican ethnomedical system is examined in terms of (1) availability and accessibility of health care options; (2) local notions of health and illness; (3) types of illnesses for which bush medicine is perceived to be efficacious; (4) properties of particular plant species used in treatment of illness; and (5) individual variation in bush medical knowledge.;Emic conceptions of human physiology and medical botany form the foundation of the bush ethnomedical system. In the Dominican view, a properly functioning body must be clean, humorally balanced regarding "heat" and "cold," and in equilibrium regarding intake of food/drink and elimination of waste. For "hot" and "cold" illnesses, locals use plant remedies with opposite humoral qualities to the condition treated. Many illnesses are neither "hot" nor "cold," and plants used for these ailments tend to be humorally neutral and target the particular health problem.;From an etic perspective, many local herbal remedies appear to be effective. Herbal treatments for which there was community consensus (as indicated by salience in freelist interviews) either contain documented pharmacological properties, or have similar uses among other populations.;There is considerable community variation in knowledge of bush medicine. Bush medical expertise is predicted to be associated with (1) parenthood, (2) sex, (3) age, (4) socioeconomic status, and (5) education. Bwa Mawegan parents are familiar with more home remedies than are non-parents. This medical knowledge increases with age and years of active parenting. Together, age, education, and wealth explain 17.3% of the population's variance regarding knowledge of botanical treatments, and 16.3% of the variance in the number of medicinal plant species listed in interviews. Individual interest and motivation appear to account for the majority of disparity in treatment knowledge. |
