Elizabeth Hsu thread - Academic style re. regulation

[Guest guest]

Dear Colleagues,

I apologise that I've been tied up with regulation matters in the UK

for the past few weeks, and unable to participate in international

internet discussion groups.

 

The line of correspondence under the heading 'Elizabeth Hsu' has

brought up matters that are very relevant to regulation in the UK.

The main issue is what should constitute the core training - I'll

refer to this is the " standard, professional, academic style " . Bob

says that in the West, we tend to call this style as taught in the

PRC, TCM.

 

In the UK, it is apparent that there are going to be two sets of

standards. Western medical acupuncture is going to be regulated

without having to include any oriental theory - it is essentially

totally biomedical acupuncture, what has often been called up to now

Medical Acupuncture.

 

There have been separate proposals for the regulation of oriental

medicine. One involves a General Acupuncture Council, which

will 'unify' all styles of acupuncture - Traditional Oriental

Acupuncture (TOA) and WMA. They will have separate training

standards, deemed 'equivalent'. All of a medical doctor's biomedical

training will be considered to be training in WMA, so that relatively

few hours of additional training specifically in acupuncture will be

considered to qualify people to be Registered Acupuncturists. TOAs

will require a much more extensive training probably very much along

the lines of the way TOA is regulated in the US.

 

The rival proposal was developed by herbalists in the UK. They faced

the problem that ethnic groups, including the Chinese and Indians,

objected to what they regard as their Systems of Medicine being split

up into different categories, such as 'Acupuncture' or 'Herbal

Medicine'. The ethnic Chinese wanted only one registered title: TCM.

As a result of this position, the herbalist group considering

regulation has evolved the concept of a Complementary and Alternative

Medicine Council (CAMC) acting as an umbrella body over autonomously

self-regulating groups, which could include Ayurveda, TCM, specific

schools of Japanese acupuncture, etc.

 

This raises a very interesting issue. If Manaka-style acupuncture can

be officially registered, why should TCM be taught? I have not

trained in Japanese acupuncture, but I understand that the various

styles of JA are very distinct from TCM. Furthermore, in my

experience, it takes about three years to master TCM acupuncture to a

professional standard. Why should a person who wishes to train in a

style of JA, or for that matter, Worsley-style acupuncture, have to

train to a professional standard in say, TCM, before training in

another style to a professional standard? I've known quite a few

Worsley acupuncturists - my wife, in fact, first trained in this

style, although she changed to TCM. I can't personally see that

studying TCM necessarily adds to Worsley acupuncture - I know that

Worsley was against this idea.

 

My question is, do we accept that there should be a core 'academic

style' taught to all TOAs? If so, what should this be, and what is

the rationale? Alternatively, could there be a genuinely pluralistic

number of 'academic style' trainings, appropriate to specific types

of acupuncture?

 

Holiday greetings,

Wainwright

 

 

 

 

-

" Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

 

Monday, December 22, 2003 4:50 PM

Re: Elizabeth Hsu

 

 

> Has Elizabeth Hsu's The Transmission of (1999)

already been the topic of discussion on the CHA? If not, I would

> like to point readers to that book (buy secondhand paperback @

ExLibris). It is an extremely good anthropological description of

> various styles of Chinese medicine functioning in the PRC in the

late 1980s. She identifies " secret transmission, " " personal, " and

> " standard, professional, academic " styles. In particular, the

term " academic style " (xue yuan pai) is what we tend to call in the

West

> " TCM. " Another way of translating this would be " scholastic "

or " collegiate, " i.e., the style taught in government-sponsored

colleges of

> Chinese medicine (zhong yi xue yuan). (Here, academic does not

imply any value judgement, such as the perjorative " strictly

> academic. " It merely means from the academies.)

>

> As an extension of this, I think it might help when respondents

talk about their views on CM, to identify their style right up-front.

For

> instance, based on Hsu's criteria, I believe Jim Ramholz would be

an adherent of a Korean " secret transmission " style, while

> Leamington (Five Element) acupuncturists would be adherents of a

purportedly Chinese " secret transmission. " (Each style is/should

> be free to describe themself any way they want to, regardless of

the historicity of their description.) I would be a a proponent of

the

> " academic " style. Deke Kendall, Mark Seem, and Toyohari

acupuncturists would be proponents of " personal " styles, etc. In the

use of

> these labels, there is no inherent value or ranking. They are

merely medical anthropological names of different styles of

transmission. I

> believe such identifications would go a long way to avoiding

unnecessary arguments and misunderstandings. Often, as a profession

> as a whole, we talk at cross purposes because Chinese medicine is

not a single conceptual entity. In fact, here in the U.S.,

> " Chinese " or " Oriental medicine " as a single thing is primarily a

political entity.

>

> Further, I think the recognition and self-conscious adoption of

such a style identification by schools would be especially helpful.

For

> instance, I would recommend that the schools adopt the academic

style as their standard and that ALL teachers should teach to that

> standard. Then, as in China, students before and/or after

graduation would be free to also study either " secret " or " personal "

styles.

> For instance, a teacher in class would teach the standard academic

style, but in their own study group outside of class they would be

> perfectly free to teach their own personal style. However, such

personal or secret styles should not be taught to undergraduates

within

> the standard curriculum and especially if they are not identified

for what they are. I think this could clear up so much confusion and

> misunderstanding without in any way limiting the intellectual and

political existence of any and all styles of CM/OM.

>

> Such a style typology would also allow for the existence of schools

teaching their own style, just as we already have Leamington (Five

> Element) acupuncture schools. If a person wanted to devote their

entire education to a nonstandard style of CM/OM, they could do it

> at such schools. However, students would know right up-front

exactly what they were getting into.

>

> Many problems and misunderstandings at our schools occur when

different teachers say different things without properly or

> adequately indentifying the provenance of their information. As

beginners, we cannot expect entry level students to be able to sort

> through and pick and choose from the information they are exposed

to without nonjudgemental but nonetheless transparent criteria for

> making such choices.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

, " wainwrightchurchill "

<w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote:

> This raises a very interesting issue. If Manaka-style acupuncture can

> be officially registered, why should TCM be taught? I have not

> trained in Japanese acupuncture, but I understand that the various

> styles of JA are very distinct from TCM. Furthermore, in my

> experience, it takes about three years to master TCM acupuncture to a

> professional standard. Why should a person who wishes to train in a

> style of JA, or for that matter, Worsley-style acupuncture, have to

> train to a professional standard in say, TCM, before training in

> another style to a professional standard?

 

I don't think they should. My position is that the various schools of thought

set their

standards and design their programs around these standards. My concernis the

lack

of standards within schools of thought, not BETWEEN them. But I see no problem

with worsely schools and jap[anese schools side by side with TCM. However those

schools must meet the regulatory hurdles. I doubt a program that did not

include

substantial western med would be approved as a school in the US, esp. in CA.

But

this raises the question of whether TCM is a style of practice, per se, or

rather a style

of education. Does it form an adequate foundation for all styles or only

zang-fu

herbology. I say it does the former. I believe Jim Ramholz agrees that it is a

good

foundation, as does Alon, neither of whom practice zang-fu acupuncture as their

mainmodality. Fact is we couldn't even have this forum without the common

foundations of TCM. I don't think anything about my basic TCM theory

contradicts

japanese meridian therapy or five phase treatment. In fact, the same theories

used in

TCM provide the foundation necessary to study these styles. As for the

suggestion

that one should NOT study TCNM style at all. Well, I know qyuite a few worsely

folks

around here. While they say one should not mix and match TCM and five phase

during an acupuncture treatment, they all say that TCM education is the basis of

herbology and without that, they would be solely needlers. So if we are talking

about

herbs, I don't know anyone who says you shouldn't study TCM. This

educational model is even being introduced in japan to advance kanpo.

 

[Guest guest]

My question is, do we accept that there should be a core 'academic

style' taught to all TOAs? If so, what should this be, and what is

the rationale? Alternatively, could there be a genuinely pluralistic

number of 'academic style' trainings, appropriate to specific types

of acupuncture?

>>>>Besides core studies students should have electives and there is no reason

that other styles then can not be included.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

Well, I know quite a few worsely folks around here. While they say

one should not mix and match TCM and five phase during an

acupuncture treatment, they all say that TCM education is the basis

of herbology and without that, they would be solely needlers. So if

we are talking about herbs, I don't know anyone who says you

shouldn't study TCM. This educational model is even being introduced

in japan to advance kanpo. >>>

 

:

 

You're quite right. We need good common academic foundational

courses before investigating particular styles. School should be a

time to be exposed to everything, including more classical reading

and pulses.

 

But as to the Worsley folks, how can they say that you shouldn't mix

and match TCM with 5-Elements? There's no clear demarcation except,

perhaps, in the intention of the practitioner's mind during the

treatment. Whether you start with the channels or organs or 5-

Elements, the others are always going to be affected. You can always

look at TCM herbal formulas from the 5-Element perspective. Their

remark is like saying that if we do chemistry, we can't do physics

or biology at the same time.

 

For example, in the Dong Han system, we always consider all three at

the same time because inherent in the Nan Jing (4th and 18th

Difficulties in particular) 5-Elements, channel, and organ movements

are related and integrated. These various styles are not really so

separate and apart.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

It seems we have 3 large groups of Asian styles: Japanese, Chinese and to a

lesser

extent Korean. I would say that an institution could teach 2 of these were it

not for

Western Medicine requirements which take more than half of the students energy.

But

that's another argument.... But if it were clearly delineated what the students

were

being taught I don't see what the problem would be with three levels: general

theory,

Chinese " internal " -herb- training and a Japanese acupuncture component. The

problem would be in the clinic where supervisor's time is divided between

students,

not allowing for individual attention to needling technique and palpation. Would

we

also need two supervisors per case? One for herbs and one for acupuncture?

 

The Asian oriented student clinics get around this by having a number of intern/

observers and the supervisor doing the treatment. But then, many of these

students

will graduate and apprentice in family/community clinics whereas the American

student will more likely fly solo the day after graduation. But that is another

issue....

;-)

 

doug

 

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> My question is, do we accept that there should be a core 'academic

> style' taught to all TOAs? If so, what should this be, and what is

> the rationale? Alternatively, could there be a genuinely pluralistic

> number of 'academic style' trainings, appropriate to specific types

> of acupuncture?

[Guest guest]

At 8:25 PM +0000 12/27/03, James Ramholz wrote:

>But as to the Worsley folks, how can they say that you shouldn't mix

>and match TCM with 5-Elements? There's no clear demarcation except,

>perhaps, in the intention of the practitioner's mind during the

>treatment. Whether you start with the channels or organs or 5-

>Elements, the others are always going to be affected. You can always

>look at TCM herbal formulas from the 5-Element perspective. Their

>remark is like saying that if we do chemistry, we can't do physics

>or biology at the same time.

--

 

I have a ring-bound book called " Acupuncturists Therapeutic Handbook "

by Prof. J. R. Worsley, that is/was available as a textbook at the

Worsley program in England. It is interesting to me that 8

principles, zangfu, 8 extra channels, treatment repertory points, and

much other information not specifically 5-element is included in this

book. The 28 pulses are described in normative CM terms without even

mentioning 5-elements. How this information is transmitted in his

programs I don't know, but clearly Worsley thought it important.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rory.kerr@w...> wrote:

 

>

> I have a ring-bound book called " Acupuncturists Therapeutic Handbook "

> by Prof. J. R. Worsley, that is/was available as a textbook at the

> Worsley program in England. It is interesting to me that 8

> principles, zangfu, 8 extra channels, treatment repertory points, and

> much other information not specifically 5-element is included in this

> book. The 28 pulses are described in normative CM terms without even

> mentioning 5-elements. How this information is transmitted in his

> programs I don't know, but clearly Worsley thought it important.

 

 

I would suspect there are different schools of thought within the worsely

circles, just

like in homeopathy. One of my homeopathic teachers said to ignore the

traditional

prohibitions about coffee and mint, etc. Another said to take any herb in full

strength

ever was to injur oneself. It is interesting that in homeopathy, hahnemann was

quite

a bit less zealous and more empirical than many of his followers. Perhaps this

could

also be said of JR. However this is not the forum to pursue the validity or

credentials

of this style of acupuncture.