Guest guest Posted November 22, 2002 Report Share Posted November 22, 2002 My apologies for being so slow on the response… [zrosenbe] If we are going to discuss the issue of eclecticism in CM practice, let me establish what I think may be useful criteria: Thanks for suggesting criteria. Before getting to that, I think there were two somewhat separate issues that spurred this discussion. You had expressed having a concern with using the term “symbiotic” in that it was not a term translated from TCM literature. Discussing TCM concepts with other terminology that may help to communicate nuances not provided by the “one” English term chosen to represent certain characters can serve a useful purpose. Yet, eclecticism in practice is a separate issue which is likely to be more important in the long run. 1) How do we determine a practitioner's proficiency in a 'non-CM' methodology? Some techniques and methodology have as their certification only the organizations that sell the techniques. It would take an unrealistic amount of organization to certify and teach the variety of methods that people are currently using under acupuncture licenses. From my view I see two differentiable categories. One which includes such approaches as Korean hand acupuncture, VAS auricular methods, Worsley-based five element methods and others that have a different degree of correlation with TCM than some of the following: diagnostic techniques ranging from orthopedic and neurological exams to electrodiagnostic methods and kinesiology. Apparently many people have found these approaches to be complementary and additive to their TCM knowledge, but these techniques are not a direct outgrowth of TCM methods. One of the key issues that can separate TCM practitioners from acupuncturists is the study and use of herbs. But even herbalists can choose from a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. 2) We are trained and licensed to practice what is defined as Chinese medicine. How do we determine which of the 'non-Chinese' techniques are appropriate for our profession? By extension, how do we represent ourselves to our patients if we use kinesiology, combination homeopathics, or vitamin supplements? As you know, most states do not require acupuncturists to study herbal medicine. If an acupuncturist spent as much time studying nutrition or homeopathy as you and many others on this list have spent studying herbs then perhaps supplementation as an adjunct to their acupuncture treatments may be helpful and appropriate. One potential solution, if you really care about regulating eclectic practices going on in the Acupuncture community, would be to have two tracks in the OM teaching institutions: 1. A TCM track with herbs having an equal or greater emphasis as acupuncture; 2. A “Naturopathic Acupuncturist” that could choose more “eclectic” adjunctive areas of study such as homeopathy or nutrition. To do this would require significant efforts by many people so the question is: Is it worth it? I certainly have more pressing things to do. These kinds of efforts usually grow out of problems that arise from patients being injured by inept practitioners. I have not heard that this is a problem in any particular group of eclectic practitioners. 3) To what degree is eclecticism covering up for lack of proficiency? For example, if there is a regrettable lack of expertise from one's training in pulse diagnosis and pattern differentiation, some practitioners will turn to such techniques as muscle testing and diagnoses as 'adrenal insufficiency', and prescribe herbs and supplements for these. While there may be validity in these choices, can or should we represent ourselves in this manner to the public as Chinese medicine? There are too many places to draw lines to decide where to draw these lines. If a practitioner does a range of motion test taught by a western trained physical therapist, uses a tuning fork to evaluate hearing, or recommends calendula ointment for a scrape, should this be considered a misrepresentation. I don’t know much about NAET, but I’ve heard that a lot of people are helped by it. In the long run I believe we in the US TCM community will be greatly influenced by what happens in China’s medical system. Right now China is making concerted efforts to “modernize” Chinese Medicine. If western and traditional Chinese medicines are practiced side by side in hospitals in China for the next five centuries, to where do you want it to evolve? Where is it headed in its current trajectory and in what ways should the course be corrected in order to end up at the optimal place? In the end its about optimizing people’s health. Stephen Morrissey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2002 Report Share Posted November 23, 2002 Stephen, Discussing TCM concepts with > other terminology that may help to communicate nuances not provided by the > " one " English term chosen to represent certain characters can serve a useful > purpose. Yet, eclecticism in practice is a separate issue which is likely > to be more important in the long run. I agree wholeheartedly that it can help refine and communicate understanding to discuss Chinese medical concepts in other terms and other languages altogether. I guess that's why I do so much of it. I just think it's terribly important to make maps when engaging in such explorations so that the paths created can be followed. This is particularly important with respect to mapping any set of terms to Chinese medical terms and concepts and has been one of the key omissions in much of the English language literature. There is an extensive project well underway in the China Academy of TCM now that addresses this critical need for a comprehensive map. Possessing such a map should allow for greater amounts of exploration of the territory by people with all manner of terminology. [...] There was a lot of thought provoking stuff in the bit I've cut out, but I wanted to just make a couple of comments on the part below. > > In the long run I believe we in the US TCM community will be greatly > influenced by what happens in China's medical system. Right now China is > making concerted efforts to " modernize " . There is also a fairly vibrant movement to " traditionalize " Chinese medicine in China. Moreover, the ongoing effort to " modernize " Chinese medicine is an altogether traditional aspect of the subject. It has been modernized in virtually every dynasty... at least once. If western and > traditional Chinese medicines are practiced side by side in hospitals in > China for the next five centuries, to where do you want it to evolve? Where > is it headed in its current trajectory and in what ways should the course be > corrected in order to end up at the optimal place? In the end its about > optimizing people's health. Yes. But that begs the point of an adequate description of the optimal place for the trajectory of integrative medicine to be aimed. Of course, it won't " end up " anywhere but simply continue to be modernized by each and every successive age into which it survives. Still, I think you're raising this question is important. Where do we want this to lead? And how do we intend to move it there? Thanks for a thought provoking post, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2002 Report Share Posted November 23, 2002 Still, I think you're raising this questionis important. Where do we want this to lead?And how do we intend to move it there?>>Do we really know. I think it will be a process that will depend more on learning that wanting. I am sure we will be surprised in 40 years. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.