Digest Number 1161

[Guest guest]

 

 

> You know. I didn't say that, either. I said

> that entry level

> education is not going to add medical chinese

> unless it

> becomes a public safety issue. There is way

> too much

> disagreement on this point to ever see this

> change made for

> purely academic reasons. And it is not even a

> matter of waiting

> for the old guard to retire, because the new

> guard is just as

> ambivalent about this matter.

 

The " old guard " (the meaning of which

I'm not entirely sure) was not at all

ambivalent on the issue of inclusion

of the study of Chinese medical language

and terminology. It was all but uniformly

ignored for many, many years. And on

this list over the past couple of years

there have been many statements made

that more or less reveal the thinking

behind this.

 

To sum that thinking up:

 

1. there is no such thing as Chinese

medical terminology

 

2. this non-existent terminology is

too difficult

 

3. it is not pertinent to the study

of clinical medicine

 

4. even if it does exist and were not

too difficult and were to be shown

as relevant then there are better

things we should all be doing with

our time than learning what the

words mean that we use every day.

 

The " fact " , if we can take your

statement as a fact, that the " new guard "

is now ambivalent about the importance

of studying Chinese medical terminology

and the various issues that relate

to studying it properly, represents

a significant step forward for the

whole field.

 

I believe it reflects the growing

awareness on greater and greater

numbers of individuals, new and old,

that there is some relevance and

importance in knowing what the words

all mean.

 

I personally

> think Chinese should

> be taught at the masters and have said so many

> times, even if it

> means eliminating massage and qi gong classes.

 

I expect that as more people begin to

discover

 

1. that there is indeed a rather

comprehensive nomenclature of the subject

in Chinese,

 

2. that it is not at all too

difficult to learn,

 

3. that it is extremely pertinent, and

 

4. that there is little more beneficial that a student or practitioner can do

to improve their

grasp of the subject than to master

the nomenclature then the whole

field will naturally advance towards

inclusion of this fundamental aspect

in the education of clinicians.

 

 

>

>

> In fact, there is quite a will to improve, but

> it only occurs within

> certain boundaries. For example, with broad

> support from the

> faculty, PCOM has moved into a case based

> learning model with

> heavy emphasis on integrative medicine and the

> results have

> been impressive so far. Not everyone liked

> this and other

> changes and some have moved on, but the point

> is that we

> agreed this was desirable and we made it

> happen.

 

Well, that's all it will take with

the terminology issue as well.

 

There is no

> such consensus (obviously, if this list is an

> example) on the

> issue of medical chinese at the master's level.

> In fact, the

> consensus must be against this inclusion

> because almost no

> school does it.

 

Has Dan Bensky's school stopped?

>

> I think the style of education we are now

> applying at PCOM is

> more focused on critical thinking so students

> can assess a

> novel clinical event and know what resources to

> consult for

> accurate info (like the PD and sionneau, for

> example). It is

> developing this critical thinking skill that is

> the most important

> responsibility of the schools, I think.

 

Nothing enhances critical thinking

more than a clear grasp of the meanings

of the terms with which one is thinking.

 

 

> Learning this skill within the

> context of TCM allows the clinician to

> understand and utilize any

> " data " they access. I don't think it's about

> learning more

> " details " , but learning how to use those

> " details " effectively.

>

This is, in fact, an integral aspect

of learning Chinese medical nomenclature.

It is part of the coherent system of

thinking which we know as traditional

Chinese medicine.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

Ken,

 

great post!

I only thought of reading chinese as relevant to translating. It seems that there are a lot of great practioners out there that do not read chinese, but you make a great case for it's clinical relevence. It only opens my eyes to how much is out there to know, and how little of it I have.

In terms of formal education, I have felt that the increasing standards have had more to do with weeding out prospects that would harm clients, and thus our field. This explains the focus on modern medicine, and one's ability to refer a life threatening case.

Realistically, the amount of training that becomes standard has to be based on a reasonable return. I recieved a 2500 hour masters degree, and while I am happy plying my skills, I would caution anyone considering this course as it is a financially risky one. Particularly considering the changes we will see in mainstream medicine in the next ten years.