Notes on Chinese medical history

[Guest guest]

All,

 

> > According to Paul Unschuld, the scholarly form of

> CM from which TCM is descended was never practiced

> by any but a miniscule % of the population in

> China throughout her history.

 

True.

 

However, I don't think we should forget that being illiterate does not mean

isolation from the body of cultural knowledge, medical or otherwise. What Paul

Unschuld has pointed out is that the literate physicians were never in

sufficient

quantity to treat the entire population and that family-trained and apprentice-

trained physicians, along with folk healers, charlatans and simple crooks

performed the bulk of medical treatments. You may read some of his work in

this regard for yourself. Go to www.paradigm-pubs.com, click on ``Reference

Materials'' and select ``New Sources on the History of '' from

the drop down list under Paul's name.

 

As regards any proposed theoretical/clinical dichotomy, Paul's argument is that

notions of what is effective medicine are never purely clinical, but instead

represent what people believe to be reasonable. This asserts that theory and

practice cannot be meaningfully separated. In other words, what anyone looks

for and accept as clinical evidence is determined by their culture's standing

concepts of truth. Note that this intimate interdependence of evidence and

epistemology is just as applicable to modern science.

 

The situation in China after the second world war was certainly horrific and the

traditional medical education system had already been degraded. However,

even the least knowledgeable of the itinerant drug-sellers operated from the

perspective of what made sense, what seemed rational, including the same

notions as literate medicine. Afterall, they could not have survived

commercially without addressing the beliefs of their clientele. When you read

texts like the Golden Needle and other poems meant to help illiterates learn the

function of acupuncture points, it would be very difficult to suggest that the

theories of medicine were not driving these views of therapy.

 

Since the liberation of 1949, with the exception of the decade of the 70's when

physicians `graduated' from schools that had no held classes, the PRC has been

rebuilding in all areas of society. What people talk about as TCM today is

largely the result of this rebuilding of Chinese traditional subjects in the

context

of China's modernization, in particular the post-liberation adaptation of

traditional medicine to public health needs, specially providing care to a

rural

population that had long suffered a lack of health care of any kind. This is,

indeed, a literate medicine and is taught as such. Consider for example that

Prof. Jiao's lectures on medicinals were written for barefoot doctors and yet

the

idea of what any particular medicinal may do is often more deeply rooted in

traditional concepts than in most English texts for professionals. As Ms. Su

has

pointed-out, it is quite chauvanistic of us to make much in the way of strong

characterizations of TCM because what we know of it is such a minor portion of

what the Chinese know and have known.

 

What people mostly talk about as ``clinical evidence'' is in fact personal

experience, and that no more or less than the experience of a pre-modern

illiterate physician, is so characterized by cultural notions of reality that

proposing that it can stand on its own in any manner is insupportable.

 

Bob

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

[Guest guest]

Hi,Bob,

 

>As Ms. Su has

pointed-out, it is quite chauvanistic of us to make

much in the way of strong

characterizations of TCM because what we know of it is

such a minor portion of

what the Chinese know and have known.

 

What people mostly talk about as ``clinical evidence''

is in fact personal

experience, and that no more or less than the

experience of a pre-modern

illiterate physician, is so characterized by cultural

notions of reality that

proposing that it can stand on its own in any manner

is insupportable.

 

Bob

 

Thank you for your support.

 

Jean

 

 

=====

 

 

--------------------------------

< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw

[Guest guest]

Hi,All,

 

>What Paul Unschuld has pointed out is that the

literate physicians were never in sufficient

quantity to treat the entire population and that

family-trained and apprentice-

trained physicians, along with folk healers,

charlatans and simple crooks performed the bulk of

medical treatments.

 

Also,I would like to ask one question:

 

How long have been west societies doing practice

with license and well training WM?How many hundred

yeas?

 

I think ,it is not too long.Therefore,why should TCM

have to act as WM?

 

Thinking is the most best thing in leraning.

 

Jean

 

 

 

=====

 

 

--------------------------------

< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw

[Guest guest]

is so characterized by cultural notions of reality that proposing that it can stand on its own in any manner is insupportable.>>That is so true and why I believe the strength of objectivism must be integrated, even though it is part and parasol of culture and notions of reality. There are strength in the scientific method that must be integrated into our ability to evaluate our experience

Alon

[Guest guest]

Therefore,why should TCMhave to act as WM?>>It should not but to ignore strengths of the scientific methodology is foolish

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

 

>

> However, I don't think we should forget that being illiterate does not mean

> isolation from the body of cultural knowledge, medical or otherwise.

 

Of course not, much as a modern westerner attempting to treat illness

without formal training would also be familiar with concepts like the

germ theory and high cholesterol. But being being grounded in the

cultural milieu is a far cry from being able to practice professional

style differential diagnosis. These itinerant doctors practiced

empirical medicine; they did not make complex diagnoses. In many

conditions, they were highly successful despite their lack of

complexity, just as western herbalists were also often successful

without benefit of sophistication in thier diagnostics. We should also

not forget the thesis of Harris Coulter's well documented history of

medicine as an ongoing pendulum between rationalists and empiricists.

I have met kanpo practitioners who choose formulas by matching s/s

complexes of the formulas to patients without making any diagnosis just

as homeopaths do, completely eschewing rational theory in zen fashion.

Is this what I would do? No. Is it a form of ? Yes.

Is it effective? Often, it seems.

 

[Guest guest]

But being being grounded in the cultural milieu is a far cry from being able to practice professional style differential diagnosis.

>>Or court medicine

Alon

[Guest guest]

I have met kanpo practitioners who choose formulas by matching s/s complexes of the formulas

>>>This is the big difference between the Japanese systems and TCM is general

Alon