Medical Chinese in Masters program

[Guest guest]

I am meeting with the academic dean of my school on Friday and intend to propose

that

medical Chinese be added to the curriculum. We currently have a language and

culture

course that touches upon a few fundamentals, but falls short of the

spine-snapping

requirements the endeavor truly requires. Hyperbole aside, I was hoping to get

a

consensus of how such training may benefit students in their studies, and later

in their

practices. I realize this has been discussed before in other contexts,

hopefully it is not

asking too much to ask a few of you to reconsider this question. I'm not

really looking for

proofs, more of a laundry list. Progress on adding Chinese to the curricula of

Masters/

Doctoral programs doesn't seem to be making much headway from the top down

approach, perhaps a more student led grass-roots approach will be effective.

 

I'd also be interested in hearing from those involved in the administration of

TCM schools

as to why they feel most schools don't include an option for medical Chinese.

Assuming

the problem is the addition of extra course-load, what if any parts of the

standard

curriculum could possibly be sacrificed without losing accreditation? At OCOM

we are

required to take at least 2 years of Qigong. In my view, it is far easier to

pick up a qigong

instructor in any large city than it is to gain instruction in medical Chinese.

So why the

Qigong (I'll ask the dean that question on Friday)? As long as schools have a

captive

audience, why not teach the things that students can't get anywhere else?

 

 

Thanks,

Tim

[Guest guest]

At 3:15 AM -0500 1/23/03, doctortim wrote:

>I'd also be interested in hearing from those involved in the

>administration of TCM schools as to why they feel most schools don't

>include an option for medical Chinese.

--

 

I was quite surprised the OCOM didn't require some medical Chinese in

their doctoral program. I'd be interested in to learn their

justification for this. One of the selling points that OCOM has used

for their program is the fact that their doctoral graduates will be

the next generation of doctoral level teachers. So they evidently

expect their standard to be influential in the shaping of other

programs and this will exclude medical Chinese.

 

In any event, at my college I am making a similar proposal to yours.

The resistance seems to be mainly the unsubstantiated fear that it

would negatively effect enrollment, particularly in a locale where

there are five competing programs, a couple of which already offer

significantly lower requirements for graduation. The other

possibility is that it would disadvantage faculty who do not have

this skill, and are unwilling to learn the basics. We are having a

meeting at which my proposal will be discussed in a couple of weeks,

so I'll be able to tell you more after that.

 

I'd be interested to hear your proposal.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Actually... I am curious as to how many people are really interested ingoing back and getting a doctoral? All my collegues I hvave chatted withare not even interested!>>>Very few will. It needs to be an entry level degree.

Alon

[Guest guest]

>

> I'd also be interested in hearing from those involved in the

administration of TCM schools

> as to why they feel most schools don't include an option for medical

Chinese. Assuming

> the problem is the addition of extra course-load, what if any parts of

the standard

> curriculum could possibly be sacrificed without losing accreditation? At

OCOM we are

> required to take at least 2 years of Qigong. In my view, it is far easier

to pick up a qigong

> instructor in any large city than it is to gain instruction in medical

Chinese. So why the

> Qigong (I'll ask the dean that question on Friday)? As long as schools

have a captive

> audience, why not teach the things that students can't get anywhere else?

>

>

> Thanks,

> Tim

>

>

Personally, I would rather have 2+ years of Qi Gong, then be required to

learn language. Learning a language I would rather do on my own, at my own

pace. Whereas with Qi Gong, I love it much more to do in a group setting.

Also, I think as a practitioner the more Qi I cultivate then the less likely

I will get sick from my patients and the more energy I will be able to

transmit, while needling.

 

Actually... I am curious as to how many people are really interested in

going back and getting a doctoral? All my collegues I hvave chatted with

are not even interested!

 

Teresa

[Guest guest]

I agree. The schools will get enough students to warrant beginning the

program, but necessity is the mother of invention.

 

 

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 06:58 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Actually... I am curious as to how many people are really interested in

> going back and getting a doctoral?  All my collegues I hvave chatted

> with

> are not even interested!

> >>>Very few will. It needs to be an entry level degree.

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

, " Teresa Hall "

<Teresa.bodywork4u@w...> wrote:

Personally, I would rather have 2+ years of Qi Gong, then be

required to

learn language. Learning a language I would rather do on my own, at

my own

pace. Whereas with Qi Gong, I love it much more to do in a group

setting.

Also, I think as a practitioner the more Qi I cultivate then the

less likely

I will get sick from my patients and the more energy I will be able

to

transmit, while needling.

 

 

Teaching Qigong at school is a great way to open students' eyes to

the potential of Qigong. However once they graduate it will be up to

them to continue the practice, and the opportunity to group study is

available outside of a TCM school environment in most large cities.

At some point they have to be weaned from the teat in the Master's

program. One year of required Qigong seems reasonable, but I

question the necessity of more. For the record, I think students

should be better trained in western medical sciences as well, but

again those opportunities already exist. What doesn't exist in most

cases is a Chinese Medical language program. I view the study of TCM

as a life process. School is a stage in that process. Given that,

school should introduce techniques that will enable students to

practice a) safe medicine, b) effective medicine, and c) should be

used as the one opportunity to offer them that which they may never

again have the opportunity to be taught. Point Location is an

example that fits the bill very well. I submit that medical Chinese

is another such discipline that should be introduced.

[Guest guest]

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> I agree. The schools will get enough students to warrant beginning the

> program, but necessity is the mother of invention.

 

you guys are idealistic beyond belief. PCOM has canceled their language

class every semester for 2 years due to lack of enrollment. PCOM already

requires 800 more hours of training than the old CA law and 200 more than

the new law, which mandates specific required classes in this 3000 hours,

none of which is language. I can make a persuasive case for adding any

number of additional subjects that I believe are MORE important than

language at the master's level (I know many of you will not be persuaded, but

I believe the majority would be). This battle is lost and it is a waste of time

and

resources to continue and fight it. we need to focus on insuring that the

DAOM includes this requirement. that is the only battleground left. In order

to

cause this shift at the master's level, it will have to be shown that current

practitioners are incompetent and unsafe. No one is going to do that. It would

destroy the profession, not save it as some of you seem to think. And it is

completely untrue based on evidence as opposed to opinion. The doctorate

supposedly goes far beyond basic competency and safety and thus truly

necessitates this inclusion. You can't say we don't need it at this level due

to

lack of safety concerns. Terminal degrees are not about entry level issues

like this. If people don't see the need for language training and western med

at the DAOM level, I think they really have their heads in the sand, if not

somewhere else where the sun never shines. It is much safer for the

continuation of the gains already made by the pofession to protect the current

licensees while vigorously attacking the inadequacies in the DAOM program.

BTW, I see no circumstance under which I would pursue a DAOM. The ROI

looks like Zero at this point in time. I'll retire before it pays off. ;-)

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Actually... I am curious as to how many people are really interested in

> going back and getting a doctoral? All my collegues I hvave chatted with

> are not even interested!

> >>>Very few will. It needs to be an entry level degree.

> Alon

 

not a chance in hell for me.

 

[Guest guest]

, " <@i...> "

<@i...> wrote:

 

>

> you guys are idealistic beyond belief. PCOM has canceled their language

> class every semester for 2 years due to lack of enrollment. PCOM already

> requires 800 more hours of training than the old CA law and 200 more than

> the new law, which mandates specific required classes in this 3000 hours,

> none of which is language. I can make a persuasive case for adding any

> number of additional subjects that I believe are MORE important than

> language at the master's level (I know many of you will not be persuaded, but

> I believe the majority would be). This battle is lost and it is a waste of

time and

> resources to continue and fight it. we need to focus on insuring that the

> DAOM includes this requirement. that is the only battleground left.

 

I would have been terribly unsuccessful if I had adopted this attitude in the

business world. There is a problem with the curriculum at most schools. True,

as Todd points out there are many problems. Sometimes the answer is to ask a

different question. I am unconvinced that medical Chinese should remain at best

an elective, but let's assume that the situation stays as it is. As a student,

I regularly see a failure of students to make connections to things that

shouldn't be very tough. For instance, what is meant by the color qing (our TCM

instructor from China calls this color blue, but no one connects it with the

five element color, which they know as green). I've attended classes at schools

across the United States, from Florida to Washington state (including PCOM), and

I've talked to students from various schools - the story is the same. I believe

that language is a consistent contributor to this problem. Due to language,

students frequently miss the nuances of the medicine that I believe allow

practitioners to piece together fragments to complete a picture. Will

misunderstanding the color " blue-green " cause this? In itself of course not,

but how many times does this type of confusion happen? There are probably many

ways to combat such issues. I think that planting the seed of critical

listening and reading is important. One way to do that is through language

study. Another way is by training teachers in TCM theory and Herbs to point out

such areas. After all, these things shouldn't remain solely CHA fodder.

 

My point is, asking the question is never wrong. The question may have an

answer, or it may merely raise other questions, but I staunchly disagree that's position represents the only progress that can come of this pursuit -

there are many ways to catch a fly, and I intend on chasing this one down one

way or another. And if you have a persuasive case for classes that could

be added to TCM curricula I would be happy to take these to my dean. We are a

community as I see it, what benefits one benefits all. OK, so there's your

idealism...

 

-tim

[Guest guest]

 

I don't understand your posts some times. My point is that an

entry-level doctorate is the result of necessity, not mere desire. I

personally think that the degree should be a doctorate degree, we

should be doctors, not therapists. That is the only point I am trying

to make. Until there is a licensure mandate for a required doctorate,

there won't be large numbers taking on a doctorate program, that's all

I am trying to say.

 

The language issue is separate, and I was not referring to it in

this post, neither was Alon. Recently, you have been saying that

learning medical Chinese is " illogical " . In an earlier post, you said

you don't respond to 'weak arguments', because they will fall on their

lack of merit. However, both Bob Felt and Ken Rose have presented

strong arguments for the learning of medical Chinese, and you have not

responded to their posts.

 

Just for your interest, I don't consider practitioners or teachers

who don't study medical Chinese 'inferior' or unworthy of involvement

in professional issues. I don't consider it a requirement to be part

of our 'club'. I consider it a practical measure for access to Chinese

medical literature. Your decision to study or not study medical

Chinese is yours and yours alone, in my book.

 

Please, reread Bob Felt's post and respond to his points, they are

reasonable and rational. Why do we have to continue on this

merry-go-round?

 

 

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 09:33 AM,

< wrote:

 

> you guys are idealistic beyond belief. PCOM has canceled their

> language

> class every semester for 2 years due to lack of enrollment.

[Guest guest]

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

Recently, you have been saying that

> learning medical Chinese is " illogical " . In an earlier post, you said

> you don't respond to 'weak arguments', because they will fall on their

> lack of merit. However, both Bob Felt and Ken Rose have presented

> strong arguments for the learning of medical Chinese, and you have not

> responded to their posts.

 

I also don't respond to posts for which I have nothing to add which I have not

already said. Just not enough time. I think Ken and Bob are both quite

skillful

and strong writers. However they do not agree on this matter. Bob thinks

learning chinese is useful and of immense value (I agree). Ken thinks it is

essential. I appreciate your more moderate position, but Ken has been very

clear on this matter (or perhaps he is just being polemic). I do not see any

evidence that knowing chinese gives one any tangible advantage in areas

that matter to me (successful patient care). this is largely because so much

good data is already available in english that I will never exhaust it. with no

evidence to support a contention, it is an empty argument. To adamantly

support a position without any evidence to back it up is illogical to me.

 

Learning chinese is clearly not illogical, per se and that is not what I said

at

all. It is the necessity of learning chinese to practice effectively that is

illogical

because it flies in the face of everything I see around me every day.

Ironically,

I felt more like you do about this issue when I was very isolated in Oregon for

a couple of years in the late nineties. Practicing solo and not working at a

school at that time. However, my tenure at PCOM has revealed to me the

inaccuracy of this position. the best students and practitioners are just not

necessarily the ones who read chinese. period. I don't know how many of

you get to follow dozens of cases every week that are being treated by those

other than yourself. I work with 19 other clinic supervisors and knowing

chinese is definitely not the most important skill on a daily basis. It is well

known aphorism in western medicine of a bygone era that bedside manner is

everything. There are many skills that contribute to successful practice and

we all can't have them all and luckily we don't need them all.

 

[Guest guest]

, doctortim@a... wrote:

 

> I would have been terribly unsuccessful if I had adopted this attitude in the

business world.

 

I was very enthusiastic about learning chinese at one point in time. it was

only when I realized I had no aptitude for it that I noticed I was wasting my

time and losing ground in other areas of more importance to my practice.

 

> As a student, I regularly see a failure of students to make connections to

things that shouldn't be very tough. For instance, what is meant by the color

qing (our TCM instructor from China calls this color blue, but no one connects

it with the five element color, which they know as green).

 

that is really sad and has nothing to do with knowing chinese. standardized

translation would and does easily take care of such matters. And the value of

many such nuances is debatable anyway. a very skillful longtime translator

who I cannot name recently suggested to one of his students that it may turn

out that all his study of chinese texts may ultimately turn out to merely

complicate rather than clarify his understanding of TCM. I think we should

consider another thread in asian culture, which is Zen. some sects of

Japanese Zen, which I studied and practiced for some time in my youth, are

very wary of academic and intellectual pursuits. Kampo practitioners and

japanese acupuncturists I have met vary widely on their orientations, but

several I knew who were practicing buddhists had this attitude. they felt those

who studied too much got loss in a morass of words and missed the true

essence of the medicine. I have also met chinese practitioners who felt this

way. while the erudite confucian scholar is one type of TCM practitioner, so is

the blind acupuncturist, itinerant doctor and wandering daoist. As Unschuld

points out, Taoists also have been very wary of intellectual pursuits and

herbal medicine has typically been very pragmatic throughout chinese

history. I believe both the position of the scholar or zen adept are extreme

and do not constitute appropiate models for the bulk of our profession.

 

[Guest guest]

we need to focus on insuring that the DAOM includes this requirement. that is the only battleground left. In order to cause this shift at the master's level, it will have to be shown that current practitioners are incompetent and unsafe

>>The battle should be to have only a DAOM degree.

Alon

[Guest guest]

At 5:33 PM +0000 1/23/03, < wrote:

>In order to cause this shift at the master's level, it will have to

>be shown that current practitioners are incompetent and unsafe. No

>one is going to do that.

--

Quite a while back, we were trained for the license in about 1800

hours, and that was the standard for competent and safe. Since that

time, courses have been added, and it's now called a masters degree.

Does that mean the previous standard was not safe. Obviously not, and

so the choice of what to put in a program at the masters level in not

just about safety issues. Medical Chinese is one option, and the

choice is not between that and safety.

 

>It would destroy the profession, ...

--

Dr Polemical, I presume...

 

>BTW, I see no circumstance under which I would pursue a DAOM. The

>ROI looks like Zero at this point in time. I'll retire before it

>pays off. ;-)

--

who's going to retire?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

However, both Bob Felt and Ken Rose have presented strong arguments for the learning of medical Chinese, and you have not responded to their posts.>>>I have read the same post and did not see the same thing in them.

Alon

[Guest guest]

they felt those who studied too much got loss in a morass of words and missed the true essence of the medicine.

>>And they do not tend to be practitioners, usually writers, teaches and rhetorics

Alon

[Guest guest]

And the value of

> many such nuances is debatable anyway. a very skillful longtime translat=

or

> who I cannot name recently suggested to one of his students that it may t=

urn

> out that all his study of chinese texts may ultimately turn out to merely=

 

> complicate rather than clarify his understanding of TCM.

 

 

To clarify, since I am that student: (maybe I was not clear with Todd), but=

- I have been working on a few projects and the comment from my 'teacher' w=

as as follows: that I might spend an immense amount of time with a text and =

then finally realize that it is all bullshit or not useful/just complicating=

the issue… he said this type of thing happens, and one just moves on… but i=

t was not to imply that all my study would or could be unfruitful, by any me=

ans. I have just been delving into some slightly controversial topics, and =

when one does so one might read a hopefully elucidating Chinese article and =

then realize that was just not the case… I hope that was clear… but as far a=

s what I have read so far, I can honestly say I have already started to gath=

er fruit… and as for my `teacher' who has been reading Chinese for 20 years,=

his fruit is plentiful, his medical understanding is immense, and his clini=

cal outcomes reflect this, and not to mention he treats very difficult `real=

' cases. SO there is a reward and I have seen it.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Well stated, I think you've made your position here clear. I

don't agree with all your points, but that's fine, no? And, yes,

bedside manner is very important.

 

I think one thing to keep in mind is that there are many ingredients

that go into making an excellent clinician, teacher, writer of Chinese

medicine. Very few have all of these ingredients. We will always

differ as a community on which ingredients count the most. I agree

with Bob Flaws about the importance of medical Chinese, but like you, I

don't think that limiting oneself to one modality is the best way to

practice.

 

Let's keep this discussion growing and thriving.

 

 

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 12:10 PM,

< wrote:

>>

>

> I also don't respond to posts for which I have nothing to add which I

> have not

> already said. Just not enough time. I think Ken and Bob are both

> quite skillful

> and strong writers. However they do not agree on this matter. Bob

> thinks

> learning chinese is useful and of immense value (I agree). Ken thinks

> it is

> essential. I appreciate your more moderate position, but Ken has been

> very

> clear on this matter (or perhaps he is just being polemic). I do not

> see any

> evidence that knowing chinese gives one any tangible advantage in areas

> that matter to me (successful patient care). this is largely because

> so much

> good data is already available in english that I will never exhaust

> it. with no

> evidence to support a contention, it is an empty argument. To

> adamantly

> support a position without any evidence to back it up is illogical to

> me.

>

> Learning chinese is clearly not illogical, per se and that is not what

> I said at

> all. It is the necessity of learning chinese to practice effectively

> that is illogical

> because it flies in the face of everything I see around me every day.

> Ironically,

> I felt more like you do about this issue when I was very isolated in

> Oregon for

> a couple of years in the late nineties. Practicing solo and not

> working at a

> school at that time. However, my tenure at PCOM has revealed to me the

> inaccuracy of this position. the best students and practitioners are

> just not

> necessarily the ones who read chinese. period. I don't know how many

> of

> you get to follow dozens of cases every week that are being treated by

> those

> other than yourself. I work with 19 other clinic supervisors and

> knowing

> chinese is definitely not the most important skill on a daily basis.

> It is well

> known aphorism in western medicine of a bygone era that bedside manner

> is

> everything. There are many skills that contribute to successful

> practice and

> we all can't have them all and luckily we don't need them all.

>

 

>

>

> 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]

Again, I agree.

 

 

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> >>The battle should be to have only a DAOM degree.

[Guest guest]

Ditto.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, "

<@i...> " <@i...> wrote:

> , " " <

> zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > I agree. The schools will get enough students to warrant

beginning the

> > program, but necessity is the mother of invention.

>

> you guys are idealistic beyond belief. PCOM has canceled their

language

> class every semester for 2 years due to lack of enrollment. PCOM

already

> requires 800 more hours of training than the old CA law and 200

more than

> the new law, which mandates specific required classes in this 3000

hours,

> none of which is language. I can make a persuasive case for

adding any

> number of additional subjects that I believe are MORE important

than

> language at the master's level (I know many of you will not be

persuaded, but

> I believe the majority would be). This battle is lost and it is a

waste of time and

> resources to continue and fight it. we need to focus on insuring

that the

> DAOM includes this requirement. that is the only battleground

left. In order to

> cause this shift at the master's level, it will have to be shown

that current

> practitioners are incompetent and unsafe. No one is going to do

that. It would

> destroy the profession, not save it as some of you seem to think.

And it is

> completely untrue based on evidence as opposed to opinion. The

doctorate

> supposedly goes far beyond basic competency and safety and thus

truly

> necessitates this inclusion. You can't say we don't need it at

this level due to

> lack of safety concerns. Terminal degrees are not about entry

level issues

> like this. If people don't see the need for language training and

western med

> at the DAOM level, I think they really have their heads in the

sand, if not

> somewhere else where the sun never shines. It is much safer for

the

> continuation of the gains already made by the pofession to protect

the current

> licensees while vigorously attacking the inadequacies in the DAOM

program.

> BTW, I see no circumstance under which I would pursue a DAOM. The

ROI

> looks like Zero at this point in time. I'll retire before it pays

off. ;-)

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> I agree with Bob Flaws about the importance of medical Chinese,

but like you, I don't think that limiting oneself to one modality is

the best way to practice.

 

 

Phillipe Sionneau made an interesting point at the last PCOM

conference. To paraphrase (I hope I'm not misquoting him), he said

that it isn't as important for beginning students to know Chinese,

but teachers should.

 

I would agree with that, and add that students don't cover enough

clinically relevant material now. Language (outisde of terminology

and concepts taught as part of the foundation classes) doesn't

immediately help with their clinical skills. While on the other

hand, teachers without Chinese language skills are working from a

deficit (vacuity, if you will).

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

To second Jason's rebuttal, in my experience, true education is mostly

about unlearning previous erroneously held beliefs. My own experience

reading the Chinese medical literature in Chinese tends to confirm

this. Sure, I pick up lots of clinically useful bits of information.

But, overall, the clarification I have experienced is largely that of

demystification, simplification, and corroboration of the

bedrock basics. Therefore, spending time getting really clear on

something which one finally realizes is bullshit is no bad thing in my

mind. In fact, I'd say that's the whole theme of my life.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

As I have stated before, I think the requirements for doing effective

acupuncture-moxibustion and internal medicine are not the same. So I

would personally not suggest the same requirements for the study and

teaching of both modalities. That being said, I definitely agree with

you that teachers, especially in supposedly Masters degree curricula

and especially in internal medicine, should have at least basic

Chinese language reading skills.

 

As for students, back when I ran a small school in Boulder (Dechen

Yonten Dzo), we integrated Chinese language study right into the

academic program so that students learned pulse examination by

translating basic pulse examination texts. Similarly with point

indications, etc. It seemed to work and did not add another separate

class. Some of those students are still translating.

 

I agree that teaching Chinese language the way most schools go about

it is a waste of time at worst and an expensive luxury at best.

However, in my experience, there is another way to go about it. This

is, I believe, what Dan Bensky's school does, and I have been very

impressed with a couple of his graduates' clinical skills and general

understanding of CM.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/23/2003 10:53:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, doctortim writes:

 

For instance, what is meant by the color qing (our TCM instructor from China calls this color blue, but no one connects it with the five element color, which they know as green). I've attended classes at schools across the United States, from Florida to Washington state (including PCOM), and I've talked to students from various schools - the story is the same. I believe that language is a consistent contributor to this problem. Due to language, students frequently miss the nuances of the medicine that I believe allow practitioners to piece together fragments to complete a picture. Will misunderstanding the color "blue-green" cause this? In itself of course not, but how many times does this type of confusion happen? There are probably many ways to combat such issues. I think that planting the seed of critical listening and reading is important. One way to do that is through language study.

 

I don't think that you have to take on an entire language to understand concepts like this, although I do wish that medical Chinese was offered at my school when I was attending. I suggest reading the work of Elizabeth Rochat de la Vallee and Claude Larre for a beginning understanding of these terms - " from the Classics - The Liver" has a good explanation of the character "Qing".

-Anne