RE: Todd's new and improved practitioner labeling

[Guest guest]

 

As a now reclassified purist (you, not me), I applaud your "rational" and more accurate perspective on the practitioner labeling issue. In fact, if TCM wants to avoid limiting its own evolution it MUST find ways to evaluate new therapeutic substances and the new applications of existing methods within the context of the TCM perspective, without the benefit of centuries of empirical patient feedback. Are animal experiments the only way? Otherwise we may be pushing the limits of experimentation on patients too far, at least for them. This evolutionary process is and has been taking place in China in a big way. e.g..: The fermentation of new (agrosoby tuberosa) and previously classified (cordyceps) fungi ingredients, new plant species (huang qi, etc.) being evaluated for improved - albeit slightly different - cultivation and chemical characteristics at the Institute for Medicinal Plant Development, extraction solvents that are not what patients of Li Shih-chen used at home, and many other examples of the expansionist capacity of rational eclecticism that you have begun to define. TCM evolved to where it is because people looked back and learned then looked forward and further innovated. This is not an American acupuncturist phenomenon.

Stephen Morrissey

[herb-t]Friday, June 02, 2000 12:31 PMcha some terms and thoughtsThis debate over purism has got me thinking about the different terms, purist, eclectic, rational and empirical. I drew a little chart to help me sort it out and it just doesn't seem right to label TCM purist, when it is clearly quite eclectic. It incorporates numerous modalities (acupuncture, tui na, bonesetting, herbology, qi gong) and uses herbs borrowed from many different cultures (mo yao, for example). It is certainly no less eclectic in this regard than naturopathy. What distinguishes TCM from naturopathy is it's reliance on rational pattern discrimination. In this way, naturopathy is actually more akin to allopathy in that they are both largely eclectic and empirical. While naturopathy has a unique philosophy, this does not really constitute a set of diagnostic rules for rational pattern discrimination, as in TCM. So in order for therapies to be incorporated into TCM, they must be used according to some form of pattern discrimination. If they are not being used this way, then they are being used empirically. There is nothing wrong with empirical medicine, but chiropractors, MD's and ND's are all legally allowed to practice Chinese herbology in this empirical fashion in many states where they are licensed. We distinguish ourselves as a profession by using rational pattern discrimination (whether this is primarily by pulse, abdominal palpation, TCM questioning, etc.). Homeopathy is indeed considered the quintessential empirical medicine. But is it eclectic itself? While using a diverse array of remedies from animal, mineral and vegetable, they all must be potentized. So is homeopathy purist? Have you ever talked to a hardcore classicist like Durr Ellmore at NCNM. He is proud to be pure in this way. I would argue that classical homeopathy is more purist than any other "system" in this sense. Thus, in order to ethically practice homeopathy as part of Acupuncture, one needs to either rigorously study this pure system on its own or somehow rationalize the remedies according to bian zheng. According to Dr. Ellmore, who was my homeopathy professor at NCNM for 2 terms, in order to effectively practice classical homeopathy requires detailed memorization of at least 500 remedies. That, computer programs can only get you so far and that, like chinese herbology, having the information in your human brain transforms your relationship to the information in ways that cannot be done if you do have the data in your head. This is a serious intellectual undertaking, one that was more than I could handle and seriously pursue chinese herbology. I have not been able to think of a rational purist system of medicine, as I have defined these terms. That would be a medicine which uses a single therapy like potentized dilutions, yet selects these remedies based on some form of rational pattern discrimination. Since homeopathy no longer exists as a distinct profession in most of the world, it has been effectively absorbed into other professions. Mainly MD's and ND's practice homeopathy professionally and both of these fields are eclectic/empirical, albeit each in their own ways. So homeopathy becomes part of an eclectic armamentarium. No longer pure. This is a major shift, because many classicists, including Dr. Ellmore, oppose the use of herbs or other natural medicines in material doses. So, it seems there are really only two eclectic camps left, one rational, the other empirical. We can thus incorporate any therapy into our rational framework. TCM is open that way. In fact, according to Paul Unschuld, chinese herbology was practiced largely as an empirical medicine until about 1000 years ago. But it only really began to advance and achieve high status for its success when this empirical body of knowledge was reorganized according to pattern discrimination concepts. So to merely use therapies because they work is placing yourself squarely in the other empirical camp. I think this diminishes our long tradition because the hallmark of ALL professional asian medicines is some form of bian zheng. This must have something to do with its durability. I have reproduced the chart that provoked these thoughts below. Todd

Remedies Eclectic TCM, Ayurveda, Greek, Tibetan Naturopathy, Biomedicine, Eclecticism

Dx Method: Rational Empirical

 

???? Classical Homeopathy Purist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type your search here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.

 

.com

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help