PRC national standards

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Seems to me that the obvious first thing to translate in terms of looking at

sources

for establishing American standards for the teaching of CM is

> the Chinese national standards that have already been published. Why reinvent

the

wheel? Now it may be that, upon reading these standards,

> we see that, for some reason, one or more of these Chinese standards are not

applicable or relevant in our patient population. But we don't and

> won't know that until we can read those Chinese standards.

 

I believe that also makes the most sense. Anything other than these national

standards runs a greater risk of being significantly biased in some way. I

suspect

these national standards would be a fairly straightforward translation:

 

pattern name

s/s

t/p

 

repeated for each pattern.

 

I also suspect that this document is in the public domain like the US

pharmacopeia. I

don't know how the chinese handle such things, but what good is a government

document if it it can't be freely accessed and reproduced. If someone could get

their

hands on the chinese original, we could probably get it scanned, OCRed and

posted

quite quickly in chinese. The document could be read with the wenlin

translator.

since it probably uses very limited terminology in list or chart form (is this

true,Bob?).

It would be a good basic exercise for people learning to read chinese, too.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

I think you are right on all counts.

 

I believe I have a copy coming from China as I write. (I have not been able to

find copies in NYC, LA, SF, or Vancouver. And I just

looked in NY a couple of days ago.) However, the copy that is coming to me is a

xerox. So I don't know how it'll reproduce. Once it

arrives, I'll send you a copy if it can bear recopying. Then you can disseminate

it to Wenlin users. If a group divided it up, it probably

wouldn't take too much to do. However, if I supply the original document, I

would want Blue Poppy to somehow participate in the

project. Otherwise, I'll probably just whip the thing out myself.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

 

 

Book just arrived a little while ago. As an example of what it contains:

 

Heart palpitations

 

Disease causes

 

Diagnostic criteria

 

Pattern discrimination

1.Heart vacuity-gallbladder timidity

2. Heart-spleen dual vacuity

3. Yin vacuity-fire effulgence

4. Heart blood stasis & obstruction

5. Water qi intimidating heart

6. Heart yang vacuity weakness

 

Under each pattern: Signs and symptoms, tongue & pulse

 

Criteria for therapeutic efficacy:

1. Cure

2. Improvement

3. No cure

 

Does not list treatment principles or give any treatments. So just a standard

for disease diagnosis, patterns under specific diseases,

and suggested outcomes criteria.

 

Very simple to translate, no grammar, all outline form.

 

My copy might bear re-xeroxing, although there's some problem pages and areas.

Also, was done on Chinese papoer. So doesn't

exactly fit any of our standard paper sizes. No copyright published on or in

book (but that doesn't mean it's in the public domain). ,

Was for sale @ 23.00 yuan. Currently " out of print " like so many other books in

the PRC.) ISBN 7-305-02723-5. Publication date:

July, 1994. Published by the Nanjing University Publishing Company.

 

Book divided into:

1. Internal medicine

2. External medicine

3. Gynecology

4. Pediatrics

5. Ophthalmology

6. ENT

7. Proctology

8. Dermatology

9. Bone & trama medicine

 

Somewhere between 40-60 or more diseases under each of these nine medical

specialties. Where possible, includes corresponding

ICD-9 codes.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

No copyright published on or in book (but that doesn't mean it's in the public

domain).

 

how do we find out

 

<Published by the Nanjing University Publishing Company.

 

is that a government agency? :-)

 

could FAX me a copy of 1 page to 413-669-8859

 

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

I would want Blue Poppy to somehow participate in the

> project.

 

I think it is essential that this document be freely available for critique and

not be

perceived as the profitmaking work of an individual or organization. How would

you

envision BP's control of the project to serve this end? Perhaps BP could have

the right

to stamp all the freely circulating copies with their logo, listing themselves

as the

publisher of the print version providing this as a free service to the

community. but I

am not sure you even want to do that. If we want educators and regulators and

insurers to take this issue seriously, the standards, if adopted in any way,

should not

benefit the publisher of those standards. Otherwise, the issue of vested

interests will

cloud this attempt to rise above the current defacto standards. If true

consensus standards are adopted by examiners for example, then publishers whose

works adhere to those standards will benefit indirectly. At the very least, 855

CHA

members will have a basis for discrimination. If the standards proposed do not

go

through some form of impartial or at least fairly balanced committee process,

they

will never get looked at by the decisionmakers.

 

Ultimately, schools or even NCCAOM may choose to adopt these standards

wholesale.

I know some will begin to yell about the imposition of any standards being akin

to

fascism or some such thing. But lets be clear. We already have defacto

standards.

All I am suggesting is that we admit the current standards have nothing to do

with

consensus, scholarship or any academic process. they are about politics,

cronyism

and more than anything else -- being there first. Then we look at the actual

standards on every issue from the PRC and craft our own standards through actual

dialog, debate and either adoption of rejection by school boards and other

bodies.

Again, before I hear it. These are meant to be standards of diagnosis in TCM

medicinal therapy. They are not meant to subsume or squeeze out standards for

hara

diagnosis and five phase style. That is for those schools of thought to

determine. If

there are elements of these styles that we can agree make sense in the american

practice of TCM, spo be it. If not, so be it. but we'll never know unless we

try.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> , " Bob Flaws "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

> I would want Blue Poppy to somehow participate in the

> > project.

>

 

 

perhaps it would be reasonable to have sponsors with fully disclosed interests

for this

project. CHA would be another. I was thinking students in some of our classes

could

do this as an alternate assignment. It would be ideal for the class where the

specialties are taught (OM4-10 at PCOM) or perhaps the zang-fu class. great way

to

learn basic chinese at that level. Bob Damone will be teaching that class (now

OM3,

OM2 in the spring). I am sure he would be game.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

> how do we find out

 

Several years ago, the PRC instituted a copyright law. Under international

copyright law, any original work is protected whether or not

a copyright symbol or statement is expressly made and whether or not there has

been a formal declaration of copyright registered in

the country of publication.

>

> <Published by the Nanjing University Publishing Company.

>

> is that a government agency? :-)

 

Unfortunately not. It is no more a government agency than the U of CA Press in

Berkeley. However, because these were published as

putative national standards, it's hard to imagine anyone being seriously upset

if they were translated and published with the intention

popularizing them in the U.S./North America, especially if done under the aegis

of a nonprofit professional association. For instance,

the North American (or U.S.) Assoc. for the Adoption of Standards of Care in

.

>

> could FAX me a copy of 1 page to 413-669-8859

 

Sure. No problemo.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

 

 

Excellent points. I think you are " on the moeny " here.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

 

 

Ok, you and Bob Felt have sold me. Count Blue Poppy in if we can also get

sponsorship from CHA, Redwing/Paradigm, and a few

other such companies/organizations so that this initiative appears to be

broad-based. I would try hitting up Crane Herb, Mayway, and

Nuherbs. I think these particular herb companies would be amenable to this

project. I would also try Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone,

Eastland Press, the CCAOM, the AAOM, and the National Alliance. I'm not sure if

any of these last groups/companies would be

supportive, but, if they were, this would be a plus for eventual large-scale

adoption of such standards.

 

Also, please let this response supersede any personal responses I ave made to

you off-list.

 

In addition, to helping out with the publication costs, design, etc., I

personally will agree to translate a section of the book, for

instance, the gynecology section. I oughta be able to whip that out pretty

quickly.

 

Bob