Language and professionalism

December 19, 2001

Alon,

> I see no shortage of those working to

> transfer the field's clinical repetoir to other professions, so it may not

> be that competence alone is enough to establish an independent profession.

> >>>That is very true but a diffrent issue

I may be missing your point, or maybe it is just a different discussion, but to

me it is the same issue. A field is described by its standards and, while this

is easily criticized as elitist, I do not feel it is wrong for standards to

present

a barrier that some cannot pass. Of course, we don't need a false barrier

based on a false standard. We don't want to limit licensing to those who can

do 250 one hand push-ups or to test them on their knowledge of calculus.

Strength to weight ratio and math skills are not knowledge of Chinese

medicine. On the other hand, we don't want to be without viable standards

that protect the profession and its body of knowledge.

If we say that the Chinese frame of reference can be dropped when it proves

inconvenient, if anything and everything form body parts to diseases, and

medicinal nomenclature can be `translated' into anatamophyiological

language without note or rationale, then how can we object to wholesale

biomedicalization? If there is no standard we apply to ourselves, then we

have no standard to apply to others. If we replace the conceptual oddness

of qi with the familiarity of `energy,' how can we be object when scientists

reduce acupuncture to a nervous system phenomena, then dismiss it as a

placebo? If we accept public claims of clinical efficacy with no evidence

other than the reputation of the claimant, then how do we say that any claim

by anyone is unfounded?

There is a wonderful example in the history of the Quebec laws. Decades

ago when Yves Reguena was arguing for a rigorous educational and testing

foundation for licensing acupuncture in Quebec, he was steadily fought. But

the same people who fought standards were back looking for evidence that

acupuncture could do harm when the provincial government ruled that

since acupuncture was homeostatic and could do no harm, required little in

the way of education and testing, they would permit anyone with any

medical degree to perform it.

As regards the current subject of language, if our terminal degree, the

doctorate, which will likely become the degree of our professors, requires

none of the langauge skills that would allow someone to stay current with

what is happening in Japan, China, Southeast Asia, or even Europe, how do

we claim that we represent that knowledge and experience any more than

anyone else? There may be a lot of sense in training large numbers of

people as well as we can with what we can afford, an army to infuse

themselves into our culture but is what we have now the only and

everlasting standard?

In western societies there is a direct relationship between lifetime income

and the length and difficulty of the enabling education and degree. Maybe

that is not `right' but certainly it is real. So, why not assert that you need

a

year of Chinese to go to acupuncture school, or that you need two quarters

of Chinese history, or a reasonable understanding of statistics? What is

wrong with a doctorate that not everyone can achieve and not every school

can offer? We cannot, as the saying goes, have our cake and it it too. If it is

the majority opinion of the field (however that could be known) that we are

happy to be a trade, then we can have a trade-oriented education, but we

cannot then demand professional pay and prestige. If we want professional

pay and prestige, and control of our field by inter-professional acceptance,

we must have a professional education. In my opinion, we should have

both, and perhaps even other levels of education and practice, but I think

the egalitarian urge and the status quo is in control politically. For

example, one of the most fascinating things about the politics of this debate

is how often the statements of position start-out talking about the doctorate

but end-up talking about `the average acupuncturist.' Are we looking to the

future or protecting the past?

Bob

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

December 19, 2001

I do not feel it is wrong for standards to present a barrier that some cannot pass.

>>>>You will never find me argue against strong standards. The question in what? Again, I believe that the making of clinicians is foremost in med school education.

If we say that the Chinese frame of reference can be dropped when it proves inconvenient, if anything and everything form body parts to diseases, and medicinal nomenclature can be `translated' into anatamophyiological language without note or rationale, then how can we object to wholesale biomedicalization? If there is no standard we apply to ourselves, then we have no standard to apply to others.

>>>Why is learning English lingo abandoning the tradition?

Japan, China, Southeast Asia, or even Europe

>>>So now we should all study Japanese, Chinese, Korean and more?

Alon

-

Robert L. Felt

Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:15 PM

Language and professionalism

Alon, > I see no shortage of those working to > transfer the field's clinical repetoir to other professions, so it may not> be that competence alone is enough to establish an independent profession.> >>>That is very true but a diffrent issueI may be missing your point, or maybe it is just a different discussion, but to me it is the same issue. A field is described by its standards and, while this is easily criticized as elitist, I do not feel it is wrong for standards to present a barrier that some cannot pass. Of course, we don't need a false barrier based on a false standard. We don't want to limit licensing to those who can do 250 one hand push-ups or to test them on their knowledge of calculus. Strength to weight ratio and math skills are not knowledge of Chinese medicine. On the other hand, we don't want to be without viable standards that protect the profession and its body of knowledge. If we say that the Chinese frame of reference can be dropped when it proves inconvenient, if anything and everything form body parts to diseases, and medicinal nomenclature can be `translated' into anatamophyiological language without note or rationale, then how can we object to wholesale biomedicalization? If there is no standard we apply to ourselves, then we have no standard to apply to others. If we replace the conceptual oddness of qi with the familiarity of `energy,' how can we be object when scientists reduce acupuncture to a nervous system phenomena, then dismiss it as a placebo? If we accept public claims of clinical efficacy with no evidence other than the reputation of the claimant, then how do we say that any claim by anyone is unfounded? There is a wonderful example in the history of the Quebec laws. Decades ago when Yves Reguena was arguing for a rigorous educational and testing foundation for licensing acupuncture in Quebec, he was steadily fought. But the same people who fought standards were back looking for evidence that acupuncture could do harm when the provincial government ruled that since acupuncture was homeostatic and could do no harm, required little in the way of education and testing, they would permit anyone with any medical degree to perform it. As regards the current subject of language, if our terminal degree, the doctorate, which will likely become the degree of our professors, requires none of the langauge skills that would allow someone to stay current with what is happening in Japan, China, Southeast Asia, or even Europe, how do we claim that we represent that knowledge and experience any more than anyone else? There may be a lot of sense in training large numbers of people as well as we can with what we can afford, an army to infuse themselves into our culture but is what we have now the only and everlasting standard? In western societies there is a direct relationship between lifetime income and the length and difficulty of the enabling education and degree. Maybe that is not `right' but certainly it is real. So, why not assert that you need a year of Chinese to go to acupuncture school, or that you need two quarters of Chinese history, or a reasonable understanding of statistics? What is wrong with a doctorate that not everyone can achieve and not every school can offer? We cannot, as the saying goes, have our cake and it it too. If it is the majority opinion of the field (however that could be known) that we are happy to be a trade, then we can have a trade-oriented education, but we cannot then demand professional pay and prestige. If we want professional pay and prestige, and control of our field by inter-professional acceptance, we must have a professional education. In my opinion, we should have both, and perhaps even other levels of education and practice, but I think the egalitarian urge and the status quo is in control politically. For example, one of the most fascinating things about the politics of this debate is how often the statements of position start-out talking about the doctorate but end-up talking about `the average acupuncturist.' Are we looking to the future or protecting the past? Bobbob Paradigm Publicationswww.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden StreetRobert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445617-738-4664Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.