Thaddeus Jacob's reply to Z'ev plus Z'ev's comments

[Guest guest]

To the group:

 

This is a response from Thaddeus Jacobs, who has requested I post it here.

 

Zev,

I'd respond to the whole group but I haven't figured out how to do this

since I've reconfigured this newsgroup to be recieved as a daily digest.

You may send this to the group if you so choose.

I am of a different opinion than yours on the subject of studying medicine

-medicine being what we all strive to practice. Biomedical testing is an

important tool at the disposal of Chinese medicine practitioners. Follow

this line of thinking to understand this fact:

 

>Thad, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I will add comments below.

 

All of our observation skills we employ when interacting with a patient are

for what? Surely you don't suggest that these skills be merely to decide

the appropriate remedy based upon the patient's presentation. If this were

so, then we fail at allowing medical science to progress to any significant

degree. Humanity, in such a case, will continue to suffer diseases it has

always suffered from as well as the new diseases that seem to arise from

time to time.

 

>I think here that you are not clear about the dichotomy of 'old and new', as if

all progression in medicine and science is linear. From where we stand in

the late 20th century, classical Chinese medicine IS a progression forward.

Its awareness of natural law and its influence on health is just what modern

medicine, and modern people need. Remember, Chinese medicine is not just

needles, moxa and herbs. It is also therapeutic exercise, dietetics,

philsophy, and living in harmony with the seasons. Biomedicine is largely

stuck in one paradigm, spending billions of dollars to support research in

medicines and disease without changing the paradigm one iota.

 

Medicinal prescribing may have its rudimentary roots in giving a patient

such-and-such herb for this-and-this symptom. From there, symptom patterns

were identified (aka syndromes) which lent to more sophisticated and

effective treatments. Based on these newly identified symptom complexes, a

system arose which named discrete disease entities and appropriate treatment

strategies to address these newly differentiated diseases. Should we stop

there?

 

>Again, who says that somehow Chinese medical knowledge is 'rudimentary'? And

that biomedicine is more 'progressive'? Each has their strengths and

weaknesses, but isn't this like Rudyard Kipling's " white-man's burden? "

That everything before modern Western culture was 'savage and primitive',

therefore Chinese medicine is old and primitive, biomedicine modern and

sophisticated. This is a very Eurocentric point of view.

 

The black box method upon which Chinese medicine is bases has both

allowed this medical system to reach its glorious state that it has reached

today as well as limited its ultimate path of utility. Currently, what many

refer to as " biomedical testing " provides tremendous learning potential for

practitioners and scholars of the great science of Chinese medicine.

 

> I think it may be possible that biomedical testing can be included as

part of Chinese medical diagnosis.. I don't have a problem with this. What

I have a problem with is that most practitioners have a limited amount of

time with patients, and if part of that is traditional pulse, tongue and

questioning diagnosis, how can they be pressured to do even more? This is

why I send my patients out for such testing. Also, who can really synthesize

the information from biomedical testing into Chinese pattern

differentiation? It takes time to develop these skills.

 

 

It seems that any tool containing " modern " or " bio- " is spurned by many

so-called purists of Chinese medicine. These individuals, in fact, may not

be purists at all....

" Modern " " bio- " medical lab testing merely represents a more refined and

specialized form of observation. It is beyond my comprehension why any

pratitioner of medicine would be adverse to the use of these sensitive

diagnostic tools. One can not deny that accurate diagnosis represents the

very foundation of appropriate, safe and effective treatment. At the very

minimum, accurate disease identification -or differentiation, to use a TCM

term- provides both the practitioner and patient some idea of the prognosis

of a given situation.

 

>Thad, it depends on the focus of a professional TCM practice. No one has

to do everything. Biomedical lab testing may be more accurate in some

situations, less in others. It depends on the condition being treated.

Sometimes TCM diagnosis can pick up problems that biomedical testing cannot.

.. . .and visa versa. This means that sometimes, TCM is more 'accurate'. . .

... if done properly.

 

 

I find it unfortunate that many have approached TCM with fervent

religiosity. I commend these people for their dedication to science on the

one hand, but at the same time I condemn them for disregarding it with the

other. True, it is extremely important to study the roots of Chinese

medicine; but let this not get in the way of being useful to our patients as

healtcare providers.

 

>I am not aware, at least in San Diego, of practitioners or students with these

attitudes. Nearly everyone is open to biomedical diagnoses, when necessary,

and the tools that go with it. What is different here is your insistence

that most or all patients must undergo these procedures, and that we must

provide them.

 

We need to diagnose and differentiate disease accurately. We need to be

efficient in providing our patients the best care possible. We need to be

effective in treating disease using appropriate means. In order to

accomplish these aim -I say this once again to stress its importance- we

need to diagnose and differentiate disease accurately.

 

>Thad, perhaps you underestimate the incredible power and accuracy of Chinese

medical diagnosis and treatment. Perhaps this is not surprising, as most

TCM practitioners have an inferiority complex when comparing themselves with

modern medicine, through a combination of biomedicine's superior funding,

hospitals, research and technology. However, if we continue to translate

more material, and improve training, I think we will become stronger as a

profession. I think the problem is not using biomedical testing or data,

but feeling that, somehow, TCM information is fanciful, inadequate, or

primitive. With this attitude, there is no way we will ever survive as an

independent profession.

 

 

Modern biomedicine may be travelling upon a narrow-sighted path. Let us

not do the same in the field of Chinese medicine. Let us continue to take

in the whole of observable medical knowledge and use it as the ancients

would have used it. Let us bring the microcosm into view in order to

concieve of the masterworkings of our macrocosm. If we fail in this effort,

them we are no less narrowminded as those who blaze the path of modern

biomedicine.

 

Thaddeus Jacobs

 

>The ancients may have approached the observable medical knowledge of

biomedicine, and other medical systems as well (Ayurved, Tibetan,

Homeopathy). But not at the expense of Chinese medicine's foundations. If

you look at the modern Chinese TCM journals, you will see that in many

cases, the roots are compromised. In fact, biomedical diagnosis rules over

TCM diagnosis in a vast majority of case histories. I personally do not

want to see this happen in the West. I strongly feel that the vast paradigm

of Chinese medicine can include biomedical data, testing, and many other

types of treatment, such as manipulation, homeopathics, and drug therapy.

Already, these developments are happening. A true renaissance of medicine

is ahead.

 

 

 

>