Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 It's important to mention that the current rage of " integrative " medicine has had nothing whatsoever to do, as of yet, with the type of " integral medicine " development I am pointing to that implicates the integrity of the practitioner and patient. So far, " integrative medicine " has focused solely on the technical and intellectual lines of development. In terms of Chinese medicine it is serving as a focus for schools and professional organizations to increase income in the profession. But as far as I can see it is based on artificial hierarchy where practitioners of Chinese medicine are in subservient roles to physicians and their attending medical system rather than being held as equals and having significant input into treatment planning. As far as I'm concerned no drug or surgery should ever be administered when Chinese medicine is available, accept in cases of life saving intervention, until an appropriate course of Chinese medicine has been tried. Until this is the case there will be no " integrative medicine " . At least not from the perspective of any serious practitioner of Chinese medicine. Unfortunately, schools for the most part undermine their capacity to produce practitioners capable of practicing a sophisticated Chinese medicine on it's own terms by pandering to the status quo and requiring an excess of irrelevant biomedical courses in lieu of a serious curriculum that might offer a solid foundation in the medicine itself such as classes in pulse, the classics, or the Chinese language. All this in the name of receiving insurance reimbursement (the holy grail) and " integrating " practitioners into biomedical settings where they can work for corporations, chiropractors, or physicians. What we need is generation of serious practitioners rooted in the heart and soul of the medicine, possessing great technical facility, who are also mature and evolutionarily enlightened human beings. That's a tall order but it's not beyond us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 I'm not sure I can agree with some of the statements made in this discourse. First, I've never heard a definition for integral medicine until today. Secondly, I have been practicing integrative medicine for around 6 years now and I am not at all subserviant to the M.D.s I work with. Indeed, they marvel at the results I get and refer patients to me, but I put the treatment plans together and do/direct the treatments. Many M.D.s call what I do " integral. " I have asked what the difference is between integrative and integral medicine and they tell me they are one and the same. The allopaths say that the name " integrative medicine " is changing to " integrative medicine " but they cannot tell me why. But I can say that I am not in a subserviant position to the M.D.s and in fact, my income is much greater than many of theirs. And yes, I do receive insurance reimbursement for much of what I do even when acupuncture is not a covered service. Patients are usually more than happy to pay for that part of the service because of the results they get. I do not see myself as a " master " practitioner nor inferior to any other practitioner in any way. Most of my MD friends don't see me as inferior either (with some exceptions, of course). Well, this is my meager input and opinion concerning this conversation. Respectfully, Dr. Donald J. Snow, Jr., D.A.O.M., MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine Revolution Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:47:52 +0000 " Integral " Vs. " Integrative " medicine. It's important to mention that the current rage of " integrative " medicine has had nothing whatsoever to do, as of yet, with the type of " integral medicine " development I am pointing to that implicates the integrity of the practitioner and patient. So far, " integrative medicine " has focused solely on the technical and intellectual lines of development. In terms of Chinese medicine it is serving as a focus for schools and professional organizations to increase income in the profession. But as far as I can see it is based on artificial hierarchy where practitioners of Chinese medicine are in subservient roles to physicians and their attending medical system rather than being held as equals and having significant input into treatment planning. As far as I'm concerned no drug or surgery should ever be administered when Chinese medicine is available, accept in cases of life saving intervention, until an appropriate course of Chinese medicine has been tried. Until this is the case there will be no " integrative medicine " . At least not from the perspective of any serious practitioner of Chinese medicine. Unfortunately, schools for the most part undermine their capacity to produce practitioners capable of practicing a sophisticated Chinese medicine on it's own terms by pandering to the status quo and requiring an excess of irrelevant biomedical courses in lieu of a serious curriculum that might offer a solid foundation in the medicine itself such as classes in pulse, the classics, or the Chinese language. All this in the name of receiving insurance reimbursement (the holy grail) and " integrating " practitioners into biomedical settings where they can work for corporations, chiropractors, or physicians. What we need is generation of serious practitioners rooted in the heart and soul of the medicine, possessing great technical facility, who are also mature and evolutionarily enlightened human beings. That's a tall order but it's not beyond us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Donald, that's great that you are free to practice with such autonomy. You should write about it and help develop a model for what integrative medicine can be. In my general experience, CM practitioners are subservient to physicians and a system itself which does not share the values intrinsic to medicine. One significant difference between " integrative " and " integral " medicine is that " integrative medicine " , as I've seen used so far, refers only to a technical and intellectual level of integration. The term " integral medicine " implicates the integrity and level of development of the practitioner as the most significant motive force in the efficacy of the medicine. You haven't heard the term " integral medicine " perhaps because it doesn't exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 If integral medicine " doesn't yet exist " , then why are we using the term and who came up with it? As far as what I do, I know of only 5 others doing anything similar. If it is the spiritual, moral, or ethical aspect of the medicine as it applies to the integrity of the practitioner, well, that is another subject altogether and I have no real interest in that aspect except that it is a personal aspect within practicing medicine and I am responsible for my own development and do not want other uninvited people involved in that aspect of my practice. As far as writing about my model of integrative medicine, there does not appear to be much interest in our TCM/OM community. I have even approached the schools without much official interest. Most folks think it is impossible to make the income I make even when I show them my financial statements and taxes. People are limited by their own minds, I think, and I am a pretty no nonsense type of person. If it works I use it, if it doesn't it's in the trash can. Sincerely, Don J. Snow Chinese Medicine Revolution Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:13 +0000 Re: " Integral " Vs. " Integrative " medicine. Donald, that's great that you are free to practice with such autonomy. You should write about it and help develop a model for what integrative medicine can be. In my general experience, CM practitioners are subservient to physicians and a system itself which does not share the values intrinsic to medicine. One significant difference between " integrative " and " integral " medicine is that " integrative medicine " , as I've seen used so far, refers only to a technical and intellectual level of integration. The term " integral medicine " implicates the integrity and level of development of the practitioner as the most significant motive force in the efficacy of the medicine. You haven't heard the term " integral medicine " perhaps because it doesn't exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 'Integral' is a well established term - there are entire post-secondary institutions and institutes dedicated to the forward development of integral models to everything from economics to politics to medicine. It refers to the forward looking evolving enlightened notion that everything we do from now on should include and encompass all domains - what is called the interior and the exterior, the social and the individual, the global and the local, etc. - or what, Ken Wilber has coined, 'all four quadrants' of reality. Integral medicine would be a medicine practiced with full attention and inclusion of all domains at the same time. Most of us practice, only in what this perspective, would call, a very 'exterior' context. In that regard, our practice of medicine is considered to be very wanting in development and much work needs to be done to bring it forward so humanity can evolve. Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > If integral medicine " doesn't yet exist " , then why are we using the term and who came up with it? > > > > As far as what I do, I know of only 5 others doing anything similar. If it is the spiritual, moral, or ethical aspect of the medicine as it applies to the integrity of the practitioner, well, that is another subject altogether and I have no real interest in that aspect except that it is a personal aspect within practicing medicine and I am responsible for my own development and do not want other uninvited people involved in that aspect of my practice. > > > > As far as writing about my model of integrative medicine, there does not appear to be much interest in our TCM/OM community. I have even approached the schools without much official interest. Most folks think it is impossible to make the income I make even when I show them my financial statements and taxes. People are limited by their own minds, I think, and I am a pretty no nonsense type of person. If it works I use it, if it doesn't it's in the trash can. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Don J. Snow > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:13 +0000 > Re: " Integral " Vs. " Integrative " medicine. > > > > > > Donald, that's great that you are free to practice with such autonomy. You should write about it and help develop a model for what integrative medicine can be. In my general experience, CM practitioners are subservient to physicians and a system itself which does not share the values intrinsic to medicine. One significant difference between " integrative " and " integral " medicine is that " integrative medicine " , as I've seen used so far, refers only to a technical and intellectual level of integration. The term " integral medicine " implicates the integrity and level of development of the practitioner as the most significant motive force in the efficacy of the medicine. You haven't heard the term " integral medicine " perhaps because it doesn't exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 DOnald: As far as what I do, I know of only 5 others doing anything similar. Lonny: All the more reason, if it's successful to write about it. Donald: If it is the spiritual, moral, or ethical aspect of the medicine as it applies to the integrity of the practitioner, well, that is another subject altogether and I have no real interest in that aspect except that it is a personal aspect within practicing medicine and I am responsible for my own development and do not want other uninvited people involved in that aspect of my practice. Lonny: The term " integral " was coined by Sri Aurobindu around the turn of the turn of the last century. It points to a level of collective development based on the recognition of nonduality. Even from the perspective of the higher holistic implications of Chinese medicine, the level of development of the practitioner is intrinsic to any true understanding of the medicine or ability to practice it. Donald: As far as writing about my model of integrative medicine, there does not appear to be much interest in our TCM/OM community. Lonny: Well there is a lot of institutionalized and cultural ego. But obviously you have something authentic to offer from your experience. I've never let the communities, or an institutions level of interest influence my work. You put to out and work with the few who are attracted to what yo are doing. Donald: I have even approached the schools without much official interest. Most folks think it is impossible to make the income I make even when I show them my financial statements and taxes. Lonny: Income level is uninteresting to me. I'm solely concerned with the degree to which the model your practicing in benefits patients. Donald: People are limited by their own minds, I think, and I am a pretty no nonsense type of person. If it works I use it, if it doesn't it's in the trash can. Lonny: Any conscientious practitioner works the same way. Of course, this all depends on what we mean by " works " and that has everything to do with a practitioner's value system and level of development as alluded to in our discussion above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Let me try to assist everyone to save some time. Lonnie has a meaning of " Integral Medicine " , have him present it in detail, otherwise you may go on for along time just clarifying this. You may or may not agree with it, but atleast we will all be on the same page. regards, david Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > If integral medicine " doesn't yet exist " , then why are we using the term and who came up with it? > > > > As far as what I do, I know of only 5 others doing anything similar. If it is the spiritual, moral, or ethical aspect of the medicine as it applies to the integrity of the practitioner, well, that is another subject altogether and I have no real interest in that aspect except that it is a personal aspect within practicing medicine and I am responsible for my own development and do not want other uninvited people involved in that aspect of my practice. > > > > As far as writing about my model of integrative medicine, there does not appear to be much interest in our TCM/OM community. I have even approached the schools without much official interest. Most folks think it is impossible to make the income I make even when I show them my financial statements and taxes. People are limited by their own minds, I think, and I am a pretty no nonsense type of person. If it works I use it, if it doesn't it's in the trash can. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Don J. Snow > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:22:13 +0000 > Re: " Integral " Vs. " Integrative " medicine. > > > > > > Donald, that's great that you are free to practice with such autonomy. You should write about it and help develop a model for what integrative medicine can be. In my general experience, CM practitioners are subservient to physicians and a system itself which does not share the values intrinsic to medicine. One significant difference between " integrative " and " integral " medicine is that " integrative medicine " , as I've seen used so far, refers only to a technical and intellectual level of integration. The term " integral medicine " implicates the integrity and level of development of the practitioner as the most significant motive force in the efficacy of the medicine. You haven't heard the term " integral medicine " perhaps because it doesn't exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Chinese Medicine , " singlewhip2001 " <singlewhip2001 wrote: > > Let me try to assist everyone to save some time. > > Lonnie has a meaning of " Integral Medicine " , have him present it in detail, otherwise you may go on for along time just clarifying this. You may or may not agree with it, but atleast we will all be on the same page. > I'd say my understanding of integral medicine coincides with that presented by Daniel Schulman rather closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 This, I can definitely agree with. -Lonny- As far as I'm concerned no drug or surgery should ever be administered when Chinese medicine is available, accept in cases of life saving intervention, until an appropriate course of Chinese medicine has been tried. Until this is the case there will be no " integrative medicine " . At least not from the perspective of any serious practitioner of Chinese medicine. Unfortunately, schools for the most part undermine their capacity to produce practitioners capable of practicing a sophisticated Chinese medicine on it's own terms by pandering to the status quo and requiring an excess of irrelevant biomedical courses in lieu of a serious curriculum that might offer a solid foundation in the medicine itself such as classes in pulse, the classics, or the Chinese language. All this in the name of receiving insurance reimbursement (the holy grail) and " integrating " practitioners into biomedical settings where they can work for corporations, chiropractors, or physicians. --- ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Hi Donald: -Donald-- First, I've never heard a definition for integral medicine until today. Secondly, I have been practicing integrative medicine for around 6 years now and I am not at all subserviant to the M.D.s I work with. --- It seems to me, Donald, that you have an extremely pragmatic approach in your clinic, and that may be the source of the confusion. In a philosophical sense what you do cannot be called integrative medicine given the milieau that this idea emerged from. But I can certainly see what you mean and definitely agree with it on the pragmatic level. I have considered approaching you to learn your system, but I am in Canada, and I seem to be heading in a different direction. However, what you do creates an important force in CM / " integrative medicine " which I wish more people would join you in. -Donald-- The allopaths say that the name " integrative medicine " is changing to " integrative medicine " but they cannot tell me why. --- Did you mean to write that it is changing to " integral " medicine? Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Hi all: --- Ken Wilber has coined, 'all four quadrants' of reality --- I didn't realise reality was so square. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 The model does not suggest 'squareness' as all quadrants extend open-endedly into infinity. This is a 'cute' but really trivial reply to a model of human knowledge and action in the world that, while imperfect as all models are, is very rich, compelling, sophisticated and full of provocative implications for each and every one of us. I highly recommend you get a hold of any number of books and articles that explain this 'map'. Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi all: > > --- > Ken Wilber has coined, 'all four quadrants' of reality > --- > > I didn't realise reality was so square. > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Hi Daniel, I've read at least one book of cohen's which explained this quadrants business, and I found it cute. It was a linear, simplistic rehash of basic ideas which are already in play and have been for a long time. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.