Conceptual gulfs - need for clarity

[Guest guest]

Dear Colleagues,

The terms 'integration' and 'integrated/integrative medicine' have

come to mean so many different things to so many people, here and

elsewhere, that they're probably highly misleading by now, promoting

fuzzy thinking in the process. On one end of the spectrum, 'integrated

medicine' signifies testing CAM modalities considered as techniques,

and if they're found to work, developing a biomedical framework for

their future use, while incorporating them within biomedical practice.

On the other end of the spectrum, various meanings exist, spanning

from Alon's example of using techniques that happen to be employed in

biomedicine to further extend observation in CM, without significantly

changing CM's theoretical structure, to even reinterpreting

biomedicine in CM terms, etc. Another meaning is utilising two or more

theoretical systems alongside each other, in a pluralistic manner.

Other meanings exist as well.

 

Talk about the Tower of Babel. At least there, people spoke different

languages, and knew that they didn't understand each other! They

didn't use the same terms with different meanings.

 

Surely, we're not going to get very far in our consideration of these

issues until we do define terms. We're going to have to invent new

terms and classifications to deal with these disparate, and sometimes

outrightly contradictory, uses of these terms, which I'm thinking

should soon be consigned to the dustbin of medical history.

 

May I suggest that people refrain from using these terms in this forum

without making explicit the EXACT meaning of the terms as they are

using them?

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

I agree with you Wainwright. We will have to define and invent or

reinvent terms to describe the multi-faceted phenomena called

'integration'. We used to call it 'complimentary', before that,

'alternative'.

 

The mainland Chinese seem to have a model of integrative medicine

(zhong xi yi jie he) that is promoted and practiced, that seems to be

clear in definition, if not always in practice.

 

 

On Nov 5, 2003, at 2:57 PM, wainwrightchurchill wrote:

 

> Dear Colleagues,

> The terms 'integration' and 'integrated/integrative medicine' have

> come to mean so many different things to so many people, here and

> elsewhere, that they're probably highly misleading by now, promoting

> fuzzy thinking in the process. On one end of the spectrum, 'integrated

> medicine' signifies testing CAM modalities considered as techniques,

> and if they're found to work, developing a biomedical framework for

> their future use, while incorporating them within biomedical practice.

> On the other end of the spectrum, various meanings exist, spanning

> from Alon's example of using techniques that happen to be employed in

> biomedicine to further extend observation in CM, without significantly

> changing CM's theoretical structure, to even reinterpreting

> biomedicine in CM terms, etc. Another meaning is utilising two or more

> theoretical systems alongside each other, in a pluralistic manner.

> Other meanings exist as well.

>

> Talk about the Tower of Babel. At least there, people spoke different

> languages, and knew that they didn't understand each other! They

> didn't use the same terms with different meanings.

>

> Surely, we're not going to get very far in our consideration of these

> issues until we do define terms. We're going to have to invent new

> terms and classifications to deal with these disparate, and sometimes

> outrightly contradictory, uses of these terms, which I'm thinking

> should soon be consigned to the dustbin of medical history.

>

> May I suggest that people refrain from using these terms in this forum

> without making explicit the EXACT meaning of the terms as they are

> using them?

>

> Wainwright

>

>

>