dr. title

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>And will demand that the profession increase educational standards at the

same time as it demands to be treated as a profession, even in OR.

 

I think it is treated as a profession in OR, just not doctoral level

medicine and perhaps not without justification. During the last year

OR gave its state licensing exam before fully going to the NCCAOM, 25%

of the takers failed. Why? Because in an oral case exam, they failed

to make a referral for a gay male patient who was experiencing

lymphatic swelling, sudden weight loss and recurrent fevers and who had

not seen a doctor in many years. This was during the height of the

AIDs crisis and as a public health measure, it was considered vital

that those with AIDS be diagnosed so as to prevent them from

unwittingly spreading the disease. If you don't know this, should you

be called Dr.?

 

, Also how about New Medicine as the combined TCM and Biomedical

Sciences

 

I agree with that. I did two years of medical training at a four

naturopathic school prior to studying TCM. I did as many hours in

anatomy,physiology, biochemistry, physical exam, lab dx, x-ray, etc. as

are taught in leading medical schools like Jonh Hopkins. My clinical

supervisor was a medical doctor from China who had been taught TCM by

her father since age 10. I have found my biomedical knowledge to be

invaluable in my practice. I know doctoral level training in TCM will

not include much biomedical education. I think this deficiency is one

of the main reasons why most states will never grant us the use of the

title doctor. I think it is very idealistic to think states will

recognize the high level of medical knowledge within TCM itself and be

satisfied with that. I also think medical science discloses data not

available to the TCM doctor. While some people claim to be able to

detect cancer via the pulse, I am sure this has not been reliably

demonstrated and even so, that most members of the profession do not

have this level of skill anyway.

 

So, for example, one must be able to identify the ominous signs of

cancer and not merely think that TCM alone will do the trick. I have

told this story before, but I think it bears repeating. The young

mother with joint pain who had been shuttled from acus to chiros to

naturos for a year and a half with various and sundry alternative med

diagnoses. When a recently graduated naturo who had a strong

biomedical bent ordered a simple blood test,which indicated extremely

elevated blood calcium. She turned out to have advanced multiple

myeloma and died several months later. Her doctors beleived that if

she had been diagnosed at the onset of pain, she would have lived for

at least 5 years. Still a death sentence, but 5 more years to raise

her son. Admittedly, several folks with state granted doctoral degrees

also missed this dx, but that means we all need more biomedical

training (DC's and ND's,too), not less. And this was more due to a

philosophical aversion to biomedicine by the doctors involved, rather

than lack of training. So not only do we need to get the training, we

need to accept the value of the biomedical system and utilize it for

our patients benefit. I am not suggesting that we spend time learning

to make medical dx, but that we are very sharp at knowing when to refer

or order basic lab tests.

>

[Guest guest]

No,

Orthopedics is doctoral medicine, without a doubt. It requires a

very broad range of knowledge and expertise. The present program for

this can be greatly expanded, and the PCOM doctorate will address this

need as a specialty.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:24 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> actually practice internal medicine

> \>>>Is 'internal medicine'the only real medicine.  You think doing good

> orthopedics is not being a Dr. I have news for Todd

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

Medical Chinese is learning the characters that apply specifically to

CM, rather than learning conversational Chinese. It makes it go much

faster if the goal is to read and translate Chinese medical texts and

journal articles.

 

 

On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:30 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> As far as political forces are concerned, I cannot understand that

> aspect of our profession that wants to cripple the doctorate (by

> excluding the medical Chinese requirement), divide the practice of

> herbal medicine and acupuncture arbitrarily (although I have no problem

> with an individual specializing in one or the other), and keep us down

> at the therapist level and under the wing of medical boards.

> >>>Totally agree although, again, not with requiring Chinese, although

> I am not sure by what you mean by medical Chinese.

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

They have, with important exceptions (Sun Zi-miao, Li Dong-yuan, among

others). But as per licensure? I am not sure.

 

 

On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:44 AM, 1 wrote:

 

> , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

>

> divide the practice of

> > herbal medicine and acupuncture arbitrarily

>

> Haven't these largely been separate practices in both ancient and

> modern China?

>

 

>

>

>

 

>

>

> Chinese 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Todd the problem is more in the laws then anything else. If we are to change herbs to other than foods, then in US we will be under FDA drug rules.

Alon

 

-

1

Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:53 AM

Re: dr. title

> From Stephen: It would seem absurd for> people to have to see their acupuncturist in order to get a bottle.> I think it is a completely different matter to label a product that has been proven to be effective in the type of studies you describe. I have no problem with that. While you say the DSHEA regulates the use of medical claims, the gray area is quite large and careless in design, IMO. Many products are labeled in a way that suggests they treat serious heart or liver diseases. As for our training, I won't argue with your basic premise, except to say that we are infinitely more trained than the clerk in the healthfood store. And companies certainly have a vested interest in sidestepping the profesional practice of herbology because they sell a lot more products when they market directly to the consumer. I commend your company for actually studying their proudcts prior to labeling them. You know very well that this an exception to widespread unscrupulous marketing practices.ToddChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

No personal offense was intended. I should have been clearer, but I also consider dermatology and neurology to be internal medicine.>>>semantics again.

Alon-

 

-

1

Sunday, December 30, 2001 12:19 PM

Re: dr. title

, "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> actually practice internal medicine > \>>>Is 'internal medicine'the only real medicine. You think doing good orthopedics is not being a Dr. I have news for ToddOrthopedics is a specialty. And in china it has always involved the use of internal medication with herbs. It has also always been something much more sophisticated than needling painful points or giving massage. I know this is not what you practice and how you practice is definitely worthy of the title medicine. No personal offense was intended. I should have been clearer, but I also consider dermatology and neurology to be internal medicine.ToddChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

administration of internally ingested medications.

>>>That's better

 

-

1

Sunday, December 30, 2001 12:24 PM

Re: dr. title

, "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> > - If we are being regarded as merely > therapists, it is our own fault for not demanding proficiency in > internal medicine of ALL students receiving master's degrees.> > > >>>I agree with this. As long as we do not follow comunity sendards for Dr or other higher education we will stay in the fringe. I thing the use of internal medicine is wrong. First one has to have a good general medical education wich includes 'internal med'Sorry, I really meant to say proficiency in the administration of internally ingested medications. Even an orthopedic surgeon knows what drugs to give for pain. Acupuncturists who treat pain should likewise know how to practice herbology in an expert manner for this purpose.ToddChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

Medical Chinese is learning the characters that apply specifically to CM, rather than learning conversational Chinese. It makes it go much faster if the goal is to read and translate Chinese medical texts and journal articles.>>>I think as Todd was saying, in order to go through a book one needs much more than just simple TCM medical characters. And again it is all about time versus benefit. A question that is still open. I am still waiting for Dan to let me know how the character for tong is so much more in depth than learning words such as freeing, moving etc.

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:08 PM

Re: Re: dr. title

Medical Chinese is learning the characters that apply specifically to CM, rather than learning conversational Chinese. It makes it go much faster if the goal is to read and translate Chinese medical texts and journal articles.On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:30 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

As far as political forces are concerned, I cannot understand that aspect of our profession that wants to cripple the doctorate (by excluding the medical Chinese requirement), divide the practice of herbal medicine and acupuncture arbitrarily (although I have no problem with an individual specializing in one or the other), and keep us down at the therapist level and under the wing of medical boards.>>>Totally agree although, again, not with requiring Chinese, although I am not sure by what you mean by medical Chinese.Alon

[Guest guest]

 

If you don't know this, should you be called Dr.?

>>>I have been saying this for many many years. And think I have already told the story of how in most classes I have taught I have asked people what they would do for a case: and I gave a scenario of somebody having atypical angina, and not one LAc in 10 years have picked up on it. None had any idea of what questions to ask. To me that is frightening.I agree with your statement of: I think this deficiency is one of the main reasons why most states will never grant us the use of the title doctor. >>>And would add not deserving a statues of primary care. Although, luckily, we do not do much primary care.

 

While some people claim to be able to detect cancer via the pulse, I am sure this has not been reliably demonstrated and even so, that most members of the profession do not have this level of skill anyway.

 

>>>>It is interesting that when I challenged Leon to do just such a thing, in a controlled environment, he said we cant because of the energetic complexity of CM. So what are we that have many other interest in patient care are to do?

 

-

1

Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:05 PM

Re: dr. title

, "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> >>>And will demand that the profession increase educational standards at the same time as it demands to be treated as a profession, even in OR.I think it is treated as a profession in OR, just not doctoral level medicine and perhaps not without justification. During the last year OR gave its state licensing exam before fully going to the NCCAOM, 25% of the takers failed. Why? Because in an oral case exam, they failed to make a referral for a gay male patient who was experiencing lymphatic swelling, sudden weight loss and recurrent fevers and who had not seen a doctor in many years. This was during the height of the AIDs crisis and as a public health measure, it was considered vital that those with AIDS be diagnosed so as to prevent them from unwittingly spreading the disease. If you don't know this, should you be called Dr.?, Also how about New Medicine as the combined TCM and Biomedical SciencesI agree with that. I did two years of medical training at a four naturopathic school prior to studying TCM. I did as many hours in anatomy,physiology, biochemistry, physical exam, lab dx, x-ray, etc. as are taught in leading medical schools like Jonh Hopkins. My clinical supervisor was a medical doctor from China who had been taught TCM by her father since age 10. I have found my biomedical knowledge to be invaluable in my practice. I know doctoral level training in TCM will not include much biomedical education. I think this deficiency is one of the main reasons why most states will never grant us the use of the title doctor. I think it is very idealistic to think states will recognize the high level of medical knowledge within TCM itself and be satisfied with that. I also think medical science discloses data not available to the TCM doctor. While some people claim to be able to detect cancer via the pulse, I am sure this has not been reliably demonstrated and even so, that most members of the profession do not have this level of skill anyway. So, for example, one must be able to identify the ominous signs of cancer and not merely think that TCM alone will do the trick. I have told this story before, but I think it bears repeating. The young mother with joint pain who had been shuttled from acus to chiros to naturos for a year and a half with various and sundry alternative med diagnoses. When a recently graduated naturo who had a strong biomedical bent ordered a simple blood test,which indicated extremely elevated blood calcium. She turned out to have advanced multiple myeloma and died several months later. Her doctors beleived that if she had been diagnosed at the onset of pain, she would have lived for at least 5 years. Still a death sentence, but 5 more years to raise her son. Admittedly, several folks with state granted doctoral degrees also missed this dx, but that means we all need more biomedical training (DC's and ND's,too), not less. And this was more due to a philosophical aversion to biomedicine by the doctors involved, rather than lack of training. So not only do we need to get the training, we need to accept the value of the biomedical system and utilize it for our patients benefit. I am not suggesting that we spend time learning to make medical dx, but that we are very sharp at knowing when to refer or order basic lab tests.Todd > Chinese 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.

[Guest guest]

I am glad to hear this Z'ev

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:06 PM

Re: Re: dr. title

No,Orthopedics is doctoral medicine, without a doubt. It requires a very broad range of knowledge and expertise. The present program for this can be greatly expanded, and the PCOM doctorate will address this need as a specialty.On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:24 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

actually practice internal medicine\>>>Is 'internal medicine'the only real medicine. You think doing good orthopedics is not being a Dr. I have news for ToddAlon

[Guest guest]

From Todd: While you say the DSHEA regulates the use

of medical claims, the gray area is quite large and careless in design,

IMO. Many products are labeled in a way that suggests they treat

serious heart or liver diseases.

 

From Stephen: Despite my contrarian stance, I agree that DSHEA is flawed in

many ways, and in fact I believe it can't be fixed but rather a whole new

system needs to be implemented that differentiates the use of physiological

regulators such as herbs from the regulatory requirements appropriate for

the OTC sales of nutrient supplements such as vitamins. The system that

exists today in China is much more appropriate. It provides for a fairly

limited category of herbs that are considered " functional foods " which

includes things like go qi zi and jin er. Any new combination of herbal

ingredients requires application for a new Class III Botanical Drug. The

application requirements include a justification of the formula based on

TCM, studies in pharmacology, phytochemistry, detailed quality control

standards, justification for manufacturing SOP's, safety research, and a

rather sizable human clinical study undertaken by an institution selected by

the Ministry of Health. The cost of undertaking these requirements,

assuming you have your own research facility in China, as we do, is about

$200,000 and it takes about two years to complete. Traditional formulas are

regulated under a different set of requirements. New applications for

distribution of a traditional formula require that the dose form is

different and in some way provides a new advantage over products currently

available. We are currently developing new dose forms for several

traditional formulations.

 

From Todd: ...actually studying their proudcts prior to labeling them. You

know very well

that this an exception to widespread unscrupulous marketing practices.

 

From Stephen: My view of the problem is that most consumer health products

are developed by biochemists, pharmacologists, and other theoretically

trained scientists that have never seen a patient in their lives. They seem

to understand mechanisms of action but not in any greater context of the

diverse health patterns that the targeted mechanism influences or by which

it is influenced. This is why ma huang is mis-used, why hong qu was

successfully developed and promoted, the basis for many egregious claims

being made for zhi shi, and why a chemical fractionation of huang bai is

being sold as an anti-inflammatory agent. This has also been the downfall

of the herbal products industry, empty promises that leave consumers

disappointed in the benefits of herbal products. This obviously hurts

everyone from herbalists to those selling OTC herbal products that do

actually provide valuable health benefits.

 

 

 

Chinese 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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Not to belabor the obvious, but I would just remind that orthopedics and internal medicine are not separate. The successful treatment of orthopedic conditions usually requires the direct treatment of the internal medicine conditions that are often causative to the orthopedic condition or at the very least will act to restrict and hinder the process of recovery from musculoskeletal problems.

Stephen

 

... Orthopedics is doctoral medicine, without a doubt. It requires a very broad range of knowledge and expertise. The present program for this can be greatly expanded, and the PCOM doctorate will address this need as a specialty.>>>Is 'internal medicine'the only real medicine. You think doing good orthopedics is not being a Dr. I have news for ToddAlon

[Guest guest]

 

 

> Haven't these largely been separate practices in both ancient and

> modern China?

 

No. In modern Chinese medical education

in China, which is at least as dynamic as

Chinese medical education in the States,

there is a tendency towards specialization,

but the acupuncture doctors in China tend

to be relatively well versed in the commonly

used formulas as well as the principles of

traditional " herbal " therapeutics. The modern

clinics in big facilities do separate acupuncture

and moxibustion from other departments, but

this is largely an adminstrative and organizational

factor and doesn't mean that patients in the

acupuncture departments don't get the benefits

of " herbal " medicine. It's far more likely

that patients in the internal medicine department

will only get " herbal " medicine and not

acupuncture, for the latter accounts for

only about 10-15% of the outpatient traffic

in a big facility like the hospital attached

to CDUTCM. One of the more fundamental distortions

of Chinese medicine in the States is the widespread

public misunderstanding of acupuncture as the

principal modality, which stems from the fact that

that is the subject that has been organized and

offered to the public as such.

 

In China in the smaller clinics where just one or

two doctors work, of course there is no

such " separation. " And out in the countryside,

people take what they can get.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 7:05 PM +0000 12/30/01, 1 wrote:

>The young

>mother with joint pain who had been shuttled from acus to chiros to

>naturos for a year and a half with various and sundry alternative med

>diagnoses. When a recently graduated naturo who had a strong

>biomedical bent ordered a simple blood test,which indicated extremely

>elevated blood calcium. She turned out to have advanced multiple

>myeloma and died several months later. Her doctors beleived that if

>she had been diagnosed at the onset of pain, she would have lived for

>at least 5 years. Still a death sentence, but 5 more years to raise

>her son.

--

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this anecdote to the issue

of our being entitled to be known as doctors. If it is supposed to

imply that we aren't worthy, then I have another story to tell:

 

A year or so age a woman arrived as a new patient in my office who

had had a cough of over eighteen months duration. She had been seen

by her doctor (MD) several times during the course of the cough, and

he had told her she had chronic bronchitis etc, and prescribed

various cough related treatments. The day before coming to see me she

had received the results of a biopsy confirming stage 4 lung cancer -

a death sentence.

 

Would you draw the conclusion from this that medical doctors should

not be able to call themselves doctor?

 

Poor diagnosis is all too common in general medical practice. I see

examples of it practically every clinic day, when patients relate the

failure to diagnose properly by their MDs; fortunately most of the

time with less disastrous results than either of the stories above.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

At 2:34 AM +0000 12/30/01, 1 wrote:

>If we are being regarded as merely

>therapists, it is our own fault for not demanding proficiency in

>internal medicine of ALL students receiving master's degrees.

--

Which are the schools that argued against it?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

My experience is that there are many M.D.'s who do excellent work, and

those that do diabolical work. I've seen abusive uses of powerful

medications that throw patients into iatrogenic sickness over and over

again. I've seen missed diagnoses by the score. I don't think we can

generalize about primary health care. There are skilled and unskilled

practitioners in any field of medicine.

 

What I do feel is that Western medicine is far more established in terms

of training, education, residency, research and funding. This leads to

a certain amount of shoddiness in alternative medicine. Plus, that

'do-it-all' attitude that plagues alternative pursuits in general.

 

 

On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 04:04 PM, Rory Kerr wrote:

 

> .

> --

> I'm not sure I see the relevance of this anecdote to the issue

> of our being entitled to be known as doctors. If it is supposed to

> imply that we aren't worthy, then I have another story to tell:

>

> A year or so age a woman arrived as a new patient in my office who

> had had a cough of over eighteen months duration. She had been seen

> by her doctor (MD) several times during the course of the cough, and

> he had told her she had chronic bronchitis etc, and prescribed

> various cough related treatments. The day before coming to see me she

> had received the results of a biopsy confirming stage 4 lung cancer -

> a death sentence.

>

> Would you draw the conclusion from this that medical doctors should

> not be able to call themselves doctor?

>

> Poor diagnosis is all too common in general medical practice. I see

> examples of it practically every clinic day, when patients relate the

> failure to diagnose properly by their MDs; fortunately most of the

> time with less disastrous results than either of the stories above.

>

> Rory

> --

>

 

>

>

> Chinese 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

>

> >>>I think as Todd was saying, in order to go through a book one

needs much more than just simple TCM medical characters. And again it

is all about time versus benefit. A question that is still open. I am

still waiting for Dan to let me know how the character for tong is so

much more in depth than learning words such as freeing, moving etc.

 

You continue to miss the point about the

importance and status of the study of

Chinese medical language relative to

the study of Chinese medicine. If you

don't devote enough time to

acquiring a thorough familiarity with

the form and function of the language

of Chinese medicine, all of the other

artifacts, theories, substances, methods,

strategies, etc. that constitute the

subject remain beyond the veil of

understanding. Yes, it's possible to

peer beyond this veil. Yes, it's possible

to acquire some of the clinical skills

of the subject without such study, and

no, such study does not guarantee the

clinical effectiveness of any individual.

 

And if one's aim is to present oneself

to the general public as a doctor of

Chinese medicine, regardless of the

initials, titles, etc. employed to

represent that status, then one should

pay heed to the consequences of such

representations as suggest a deep and

thorough understanding of a subject

exists where in fact there is only

an understanding as deep as you'd expect

in any subject that ignored its own

nomenclature.

 

Consumers do not tend to trust

supposed professionals who cannot

explain what the words

they use mean.

 

You enormously underestimate what there is

to be learned from the study of the

Chinese words and terms. It's a subject

that the Chinese scholars place a high

importance on. If the venerated sources

of the ongoing transmission aren't worth

listening to when it comes to what is

important and what isn't important, then

who is? That's why there is today in China a

project to compile, collate, and standardize

the terminology of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

I gave a talk last week to the Systems Science

Forum at Beijing Normal University and spent

much of the time talking with two or three dozen

young Chinese scientists: physicists, economsists,

computer scientists, psychologists, and so on.

And you know what they really wanted to talk

about? They wanted to talk about what is qi4?

They really wanted to know what I really knew

about the word as I had been so brash to

write a book about it. It led to an interesting

couple of hours spent exploring a range of

questions related to the scientific investigation

and understanding of traditional Chinese concepts

such as qi4.

 

You can certainly continue to brush it off

as being not worth the benefit, but you should

recognize that knowing little of a subject

does not really qualify one to judge that

subject's value or importance. As a scientist

all you can state is that you do not know

what there is to be gained from the study

of Chinese medical language since you have,

if I understood you on this, devoted rather

little if any time to such study having

decided that your time is more well spent

elsewhere.

 

I have no real problem with that decision

but with the statments that follow or

are suggested and implied from your ongoing

remarks on this subject. For anything that

you say about the value of the study of

Chinese medical language after recognizing

that you know relatively little about it

is not based on a sound approach to developing

data and thinking about it.

 

How can you profess to judge the value of

something that you do not know?

 

As you well know, I am more than happy to

carry on in this vein, but if you have some

sort of argument to present that actually

substantiates your repeated assertions that

time spent studying Chinese medical language

is more well spent studying other things

even if and recognizing that the study

of the language is thereby excluded from

the education of practitioners, then please

do so.

 

This is something about the education of

Chinese medical practitioners in this

country that actually needs to change. I

recognize that there are strident voices,

such as yours, that oppose this change

that more and more people are starting

to demand and embrace, i.e. the inclusion

of Chinese medical language among the

requisites subjects constituting a proper

education of a doctor of Chinese medicine.

 

But I wonder if there really are any

cogent and well thought out arguments

out there. I can't for the life of me

imagine one. The ones I've heard, so

you don't have bother with them:

 

-students won't buy it

-this is America not China

-there is no nomenclature, no language,

nothing of importance there at all

other than what a hand full of translators

tells us is important

 

and variations on these and probably other

themes

 

None of them really impress me much.

 

They just don't make sense once you

accept the consensus of people who

do know something about the subject

that it is a substantial benefit

in increasing the educability of

students of the subject, as Dan B.

stated clearly.

 

I'm not even interested in changing

your mind about your personal decisions.

But I just don't feel comfortable letting

your derogatory remarks about the

value of the study Chinese medical language

go by unchallenged.

 

No one seems to think that it's a bad

idea, but there just seems to be a great

inertia resisting such a change in play

with many individuals and organizations

involved. I'm really curious to find out

more about this

 

Ken

> Alon

> -

>

>

> Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:08 PM

> Re: Re: dr. title

>

>

> Medical Chinese is learning the characters that apply

specifically to CM, rather than learning conversational Chinese. It

makes it go much faster if the goal is to read and translate Chinese

medical texts and journal articles.

>

>

> On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 09:30 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

>

>

> As far as political forces are concerned, I cannot understand

that aspect of our profession that wants to cripple the doctorate (by

excluding the medical Chinese requirement), divide the practice of

herbal medicine and acupuncture arbitrarily (although I have no

problem with an individual specializing in one or the other), and

keep us down at the therapist level and under the wing of medical

boards.

> >>>Totally agree although, again, not with requiring Chinese,

although I am not sure by what you mean by medical Chinese.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Ken Rose:

> I'm not even interested in changing

> your mind about your personal decisions.

> But I just don't feel comfortable letting

> your derogatory remarks about the

> value of the study Chinese medical language

> go by unchallenged.

 

 

I don't think it's " derogatory " to question the time/benefit ratio---

personally or for the culture at large. There are a few dozen

scholars already working on translations and commentary; as the

field becomes more mainstream, that number will naturally increase.

People who have the talent and initiative should translate. Everyone

else should be required to read their translations.

 

Should the etymology of major terms and concepts be required in our

study---of course. But that doesn't necessitate every practitioner

*must* learn how to read Chinese. Language skills are different from

those needed as a practitioner, and adequate knowledge---in English--

-should be a prerequisite to practice. Besides, practitioners will

be long out of school before they have adequate skill in translating

anything premodern in Chinese.

 

Are Western MDs required to study Latin and Greek in order to

practice?

 

I suspect that if it can't be made clear in English, then the

Chinese probably weren't clear about it anyway. Commentary by

Shigehisa Kuriyama, Elisabeth Hsu, and Donald Harper---to name just

three---should also be made mandatory reading (but who listens to

me?).

 

 

> No one seems to think that it's a bad

> idea, but there just seems to be a great

> inertia resisting such a change in play

> with many individuals and organizations

> involved.

 

Not everyone shares the personal emotional value you place on it.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

At 8:48 AM +0000 12/31/01, jramholz wrote:

>Should the etymology of major terms and concepts be required in our

>study---of course. But that doesn't necessitate every practitioner

>*must* learn how to read Chinese.

--

Ken can answer for himself, but I think the thrust of his argument is

not that the benefit of studying the language is that you end up

translating (although that may be a side benefit for some). Rather

the benefit is that by studying the language you grasp the structure

of thought that in inherent in the medicine, and without that you

don't fully 'get' the medicine. I think that is an interesting

question to address.

 

The time benefit counter argument does not address the question.

No-one is asking Alon, or I to go back to school. We are trying to

see what a good quality standard program should include now, for new

students. Students now have far more hours in their program than back

when we went through school, so whereas it may not have been a good

use of our time then, now it may well be. These program hours have

increased dramatically, yet the inclusion of more language study has

not been. With the doctorate, the hours will increase even more, yet

there is still resistance to the idea of language study. That

suggests the resistance to language study is based on some other

factor than time available.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

On Monday, December 31, 2001, at 12:48 AM, jramholz wrote:

 

> Should the etymology of major terms and concepts be required in our

> study---of course. But that doesn't necessitate every practitioner

> *must* learn how to read Chinese. Language skills are different from

> those needed as a practitioner, and adequate knowledge---in English--

> -should be a prerequisite to practice. Besides, practitioners will

> be long out of school before they have adequate skill in translating

> anything premodern in Chinese.

 

(Z'ev) Jim, as a teacher for many years now, I find that without at

least basic knowledge of Chinese medical terminology, that the ability

to think in terms of pattern differentiation is impossible.

>

> Are Western MDs required to study Latin and Greek in order to

> practice?

 

If the literature was still in Latin, it would be. German used to be

required for M.D.'s when the bulk of the medical literature was in that

language. Chinese students of WM are required to learn English. Have

you ever seen a Chinese/English biomedical dictionary? The Chinese

translation is very clumsy and difficult.

 

I am reading a book, " Aristotle in China " , about attempts to translate

his works into Chinese. A very difficult undertaking, not unlike

attempts to translate Chinese medical works into English.

 

I don't think Ken expects all practitioners and students to be fluent in

Chinese in a short period of time; but a little knowledge of Chinese, as

you know, goes a long way in helping understand the necessary conceptual

foundation of the medicine.

>

> I suspect that if it can't be made clear in English, then the

> Chinese probably weren't clear about it anyway. Commentary by

> Shigehisa Kuriyama, Elisabeth Hsu, and Donald Harper---to name just

> three---should also be made mandatory reading (but who listens to

> me?).

>

The burden here is not on the Chinese, but on the translators. I would

say until the last few years, in the writers you mention here, attempts

by Chinese translators were very poor at best. Look at the New World

Press SHL, for example, and compare it to the Mitchell/Wiseman/Feng

SHL. The authors you mention are fluent in English, as far as I can

tell.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote:

> The time benefit counter argument does not address the question.

 

The time/benefit *is* an important question, too. I think there are

two seaparate questions mixed together. The first is whether Chinese

language in some form should be included in study. Everyone agrees

that it should be included in some form. The two best arguments for

it (in my mind) are (1) like language study in regular college (in

many cases acupuncture school will replace regulr college), it

rounds out the person and their appreciation of how this system

developed (those of us doing Korean and Japanese styles may still be

unsatisfied); and (2) if the end product of acupuncture school is

some clinical practice in China, then communication skills are

useful and important. And reading modern texts for new acupuncture

and herbal formulas is immensely rewarding in clinical terms.

 

The issue of time/benefit at this stage of development in our

profession is largely about the social and financial considerations.

Are classes now adequate and sufficient to go the next step and

spend extra time requiring language? Can schools do it and remain

solvent? Are we are putting an extra burden on schools who often

have small enrollments and limited financial resources? Will a

language requirement discourage application to schools? The return

on this investment hasn't been demonstrated yet. If there are now

not enough competent teachers now for classes in English who can

survey the published translations and commentaries, the burden on

finding new teachers who know how to teach the language only

compounds a school's problems.

 

If Chinese terms and concepts aren't adequately translated now into

English, then it is a problem of the structure of the classes in

English. There's no reason why the information that Ken and others

feel compelled to include can't be discussed in English. If those

ideas can't be translated and discussed, then the translators have

already failed.

 

Then there is a third issue of paradigm change and innovation. Just

as the Suwen represents an important transition from

magical/religious perspectives, the collision of sensibilities of

Western and Eastern medicines will make for interesting changes in

this century.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> I don't think it's " derogatory " to question the time/benefit ratio--

-

> personally or for the culture at large.

 

It is precisely and entirely derogatory

to persistently brush off the importance

of studying Chinese medical language for

students of Chinese medicine by asserting

over and over and over that there is some

conflict between time and benefit and suggesting

that time spent studying this vital subject

is better spent otherwise.

 

Here is the dictionary.com definition

of derogatory:

 

de·rog·a·to·ry (d-rg-tôr, -tr)

adj.

1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.

2. Tending to detract or diminish.

 

That's what that argument does. It tends

to detract or diminish the value of

studying the language. And, as I

said, it is primarily an argument

that is asserted by individuals who

have not done so and who are therefore

not qualified to forward such an

opinion.

 

As Rory pointed out, one is only left

to conclude that such arguments are

motivated by other, as yet not fully

or clearly stated concerns.

 

There are a few dozen

> scholars already working on translations and commentary; as the

> field becomes more mainstream, that number will naturally increase.

> People who have the talent and initiative should translate.

Everyone

> else should be required to read their translations.

 

I agree that it's potentially valuable

to read translations. But if a student

only reads translations he or she only

deals with other people's interpretations

of the originals, and as Rory pointed

out again, never acquires a familiarity

with the underlying thought processes

that are imparted to the originals by

means of the form and function of the

language in which the originals were

composed.

 

 

>

> Should the etymology of major terms and concepts be required in our

> study---of course. But that doesn't necessitate every practitioner

> *must* learn how to read Chinese. Language skills are different

from

> those needed as a practitioner, and adequate knowledge---in English-

-

> -should be a prerequisite to practice. Besides, practitioners will

> be long out of school before they have adequate skill in

translating

> anything premodern in Chinese.

 

Translating is an altogether different

skill set. I don't expect practitioners

to become translators. I expect people

who profess to use the tools of Chinese

medicine to be familiar with the description

and long established usages of those tools.

The most fundamental tools are the theories

and the understanding of theory depends upon

an understanding of how the language operates.

 

 

>

> Are Western MDs required to study Latin and Greek in order to

> practice?

 

Z'ev addressed this point. There was a

time when the answer was a resounding yes.

What changed? Well, the knowledge base of

the subject shifted from a predominantly

Latin and Greek emphasis to English. Nowadays,

schools of medicine around the world tend

to require medical students to read and

understand English for some of the

same reasons that are forwarded to support

the requirement that students of Chinese

medicine read and understand Chinese.

 

The knowledge base of Chinese medicine

has come nowhere near shifting into English.

And in cultural zones where the subject

has been studied and translated for

centuries already rather than decades,

there is still an important emphasis

placed on reading and understanding the

Chinese. Chinese is not native to Koreans

and Japanese. Students in these two cultures,

for example, acquire this skill as

part of their education in Chinese medicine.

 

 

>

> I suspect that if it can't be made clear in English, then the

> Chinese probably weren't clear about it anyway. Commentary by

> Shigehisa Kuriyama, Elisabeth Hsu, and Donald Harper---to name just

> three---should also be made mandatory reading (but who listens to

> me?).

 

Again, I agree that commentary is valuable.

But it cannot replace the original material.

 

 

>

>

> > No one seems to think that it's a bad

> > idea, but there just seems to be a great

> > inertia resisting such a change in play

> > with many individuals and organizations

> > involved.

>

> Not everyone shares the personal emotional value you place on it.

 

This has approximately nothing to do with

my personal emotional values Jim. Not everyone

shares your personal emotional values either.

So what?

 

But if everyone wants and intends to share

a knowledge of Chinese medical theory, they

had better acquire an understanding of the

language in which it is written.

 

Once again, my primary arguments are all

a matter of public record. And I am still

waiting for anyone to address them directly

rather than continued assertions from people

who know rather little if any Chinese that

it just ain't so.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> I agree that it's potentially valuable

> to read translations. But if a student

> only reads translations he or she only

> deals with other people's interpretations

> of the originals, and as Rory pointed

> out again, never acquires a familiarity

> with the underlying thought processes

> that are imparted to the originals by

> means of the form and function of the

> language in which the originals were

> composed.

 

In what length of time will a student be able to adequately

translate premodern originals and be familiar with their underlying

thought processes?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> The time/benefit *is* an important question, too. I think there are

> two seaparate questions mixed together. The first is whether

Chinese

> language in some form should be included in study. Everyone agrees

> that it should be included in some form.

 

That's not true. If everyone agreed that it

should be included in some form, then it

would be included in some form. For the past

twenty years or more it has been systematically

excluded in virtually all forms except in a

few rare places.

 

The two best arguments for

> it (in my mind) are (1) like language study in regular college (in

> many cases acupuncture school will replace regulr college), it

> rounds out the person and their appreciation of how this system

> developed (those of us doing Korean and Japanese styles may still

be

> unsatisfied); and (2) if the end product of acupuncture school is

> some clinical practice in China, then communication skills are

> useful and important. And reading modern texts for new acupuncture

> and herbal formulas is immensely rewarding in clinical terms.

>

> The issue of time/benefit at this stage of development in our

> profession is largely about the social and financial

considerations.

> Are classes now adequate and sufficient to go the next step and

> spend extra time requiring language?

 

You persist in your characterization of time

spent learning the medical language as " extra " .

This is a mistake. It is not extra. It is basic.

It has been an omitted basic for far too long.

 

Can schools do it and remain

> solvent? Are we are putting an extra burden on schools who often

> have small enrollments and limited financial resources? Will a

> language requirement discourage application to schools? The return

> on this investment hasn't been demonstrated yet.

 

The problems that have to be solved in order

to teach the subject adequately and properly

will need to be worked out, of course. But

as you correctly point out, these are an

altogether different issue from whether or

not the study of the medical language is

necessary or important.

 

If there are now

> not enough competent teachers now for classes in English who can

> survey the published translations and commentaries, the burden on

> finding new teachers who know how to teach the language only

> compounds a school's problems.

 

 

>

> If Chinese terms and concepts aren't adequately translated now into

> English, then it is a problem of the structure of the classes in

> English. There's no reason why the information that Ken and others

> feel compelled to include can't be discussed in English. If those

> ideas can't be translated and discussed, then the translators have

> already failed.

 

You know, your continued insistence on characterizing

what I'm saying as a compulsion or some sort of

emotional issue suggests to me that you, yourself

have some sort of emotional attachment to a defense

of a position that I believe is largely indefensible.

 

I normally wouldn't broach the subject of an individual's

emotional issues in this forum, but as you seem dedicated

to bringing it up in one way or another, let's talk about

it. As far as my own emotional state on the subject goes,

I'll try to characterize it as best I can. I am passionately

concerned about the future of Chinese medicine. This results

from having studied the subject for more than thirty years.

It also results from a recognition of the debt that I owe

to my teachers and to the generations of the future who

will only have what is passed on to them.

 

I do not feel compelled by anything other than

the result of many years invested in studying

the nature of the transmission process of traditional

Chinese ideas to non-Chinese minds. I say that

the education system in this country needs to

change to include study of Chinese medical Chinese

because it is important if we as a community

have a common concern to transmit to our descandants

the traditions that we have received that enable

us to be having this discussion.

 

Now, do you feel compelled to argue against

it? You state that everybody thinks it should

be included in some form, flying in the face

of its long term exclusion in the States.

 

In fact, I'm happy to talk about the

emotional aspects of this discussion.

What are your emotional attachments?

>

> Then there is a third issue of paradigm change and innovation. Just

> as the Suwen represents an important transition from

> magical/religious perspectives, the collision of sensibilities of

> Western and Eastern medicines will make for interesting changes in

> this century.

>

And, as you will soon read in the piece that

we are working on that concerns Complexity and

Chinese medicine, these changes are already

underway and have begun with the project to

standardize the medical terminology of the

subject currently in progress in the China

Academy of Sciences, which is being conducted

under the guidance of complexity theory.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

What I do feel is that Western medicine is far more established in terms of training, education, residency, research and funding. This leads to a certain amount of shoddiness in alternative medicine. Plus, that 'do-it-all' attitude that plagues alternative pursuits in general.>>>Also if you do not know you do not know that you dont know. Application of knowledge is a different issue

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, December 30, 2001 5:18 PM

Re: Re: dr. title

My experience is that there are many M.D.'s who do excellent work, and those that do diabolical work. I've seen abusive uses of powerful medications that throw patients into iatrogenic sickness over and over again. I've seen missed diagnoses by the score. I don't think we can generalize about primary health care. There are skilled and unskilled practitioners in any field of medicine.What I do feel is that Western medicine is far more established in terms of training, education, residency, research and funding. This leads to a certain amount of shoddiness in alternative medicine. Plus, that 'do-it-all' attitude that plagues alternative pursuits in general.On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 04:04 PM, Rory Kerr wrote:

..-- I'm not sure I see the relevance of this anecdote to the issueof our being entitled to be known as doctors. If it is supposed toimply that we aren't worthy, then I have another story to tell:A year or so age a woman arrived as a new patient in my office whohad had a cough of over eighteen months duration. She had been seenby her doctor (MD) several times during the course of the cough, andhe had told her she had chronic bronchitis etc, and prescribedvarious cough related treatments. The day before coming to see me shehad received the results of a biopsy confirming stage 4 lung cancer -a death sentence.Would you draw the conclusion from this that medical doctors shouldnot be able to call themselves doctor?Poor diagnosis is all too common in general medical practice. I seeexamples of it practically every clinic day, when patients relate thefailure to diagnose properly by their MDs; fortunately most of thetime with less disastrous results than either of the stories above.Rory--

Chinese 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.