effective practice

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

 

>

> This reflects, I believe, the repetition of the mantra that it is not

necessary to learn Chinese in order to practice effectively by various of

the faculty...such as your esteemed self. Students listen. They do, for

the most part, as they are told. Why in the world tell them that a basic

critical skill is not necessary?

 

That's a very good point, except all my students will tell you that I

encourage them to study chinese from day one. my position with respect to

you is different than my position with respect to them. Your position on

the essential value of chinese language acquisition is more extreme than

mine, but my position is still far closer to yours than it is to the

status quo. I still maintain that for 85% of the complaints that walk in

the door of an L.Ac., the current education is more than adequate. Hell,

85% of complaints get better by themselves according to some opinions.

That is the sole reason that I say chinese is not necessary for general

practice. outcomes.

 

The problem is those 15% of complaints that are quite serious and

complicated and which do not get better by themselves. and it is those

complaints that kill and debilitate most of the population. and it is

those complaints that attracted me to medicine in the first place. I do

not believe TCM will ever challenge WM in the treatment of strange and

chronic illnesses unless a significant minority tackle the chinese medical

literature in chinese. I also believe we have a duty as a profession to

be academically and clinically prepared to tackle such complaints. This

position is different than yours, yet also close to yours in that I also

believe that when it really comes down to it, ones hands are quite tied at

times w/o direct access to the literature. But that's when it really

comes down to it. Most of the time, it doesn't really seem to matter.

And that's a clinical observation that I cannot prove but which has been

confirmed by numerous colleagues who spend their days in clinic like me.

 

Naturopaths say the best medicine is the removal of the obstacles to cure.

Gluttony and sloth, mainly. Do that, add some regular acupuncture and a

patent medicine dosed too low to do any harm and perhaps even a bit of

good. And voila. Most folks get better from the clean diet and the

avoidance of drugs. Acupuncture speeds up the process. And if one is

motivated, there is also more than adequate information in english to

practice herbology safely and effectively for most complaints one sees,

even using high doses of raw herbs. TCM in america seems pretty effective

to me already, more effective than WM for many common complaints, IMO, but

perhaps it can be better. In the mean time if a complaint exceeds my

ability to help without causing any harm, I refer the patient to someone

who can. Perhaps the fact most complaints can be treated effectively by

pretty basic diet and acupuncture, yet certain other complaints are more

demanding and require one to have free literature access, is one more

reason for a multi-tiered profession. Clearly, minimal training with no

chinese can lead to effective GP's. On the other hand, if one is truly to

function as a doctor in both the western and TCM sense, a lot more should

be demanded.

 

Based upon observed outcomes, I do not think it is hypocritical to accept

that knowing chinese is not necessary to help MOST patients, yet may be

the most expedient way to gather or absorb the information necessary to

help CERTAIN patients. I say most expedient because sometimes there are

ample research reports and case studies available in english to guide one.

But then there are things like the essays of zhang xi chun and many

others. How does one access that information at will. These are things

one reads and ponders for a while like Qin bo wei and zhu dan xi and li

dong yuan. At PCOM, one of the broad goals of the DAOM is to create

specialists - I believe our approved specialties include geriatrics,

neuromuscular and psych. If one is to specialize at the highest level a

degree will be awarded in the field, I cannot see how some Chinese would

not be essential. Certainly the chinese teachers who will do most of the

teaching in our DAOM program consider it essential.

 

BTW, some students asked me what organization has an agenda that differs

from CSOMA and AAOM. the national alliance does diverge on several key

points, so those who are investigating joining such a group might consider

this one as well. they are not really represented on CHA, while the

positions of the others are, so it may seem that one position really

prevails on matters like the entry level DAOM. On the other hand, I have

always had certain misgivings about this alliance because it is not truly

a practitioner organization and is quite influenced by the well organized

CCAOM and NCCAOM.

 

their site is http://www.AOMAlliance.org/

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

This position is different than yours, yet also close to yours in that I also believe that when it really comes down to it, ones hands are quite tied at times w/o direct access to the literature. But that's when it really comes down to it. Most of the time, it doesn't really seem to matter. And that's a clinical observation that I cannot prove but which has been confirmed by numerous colleagues who spend their days in clinic like me. >>>Well are we going to see audited followups in the big school clinics? Perhaps comparing outcome of Chinese readers to nonreaders? Rather than all this dogmatic arguments let see at least one school do this.

Alon