integration or not? The study of tcm

[Guest guest]

In the same magazine in which Xie Zhu-fan's criticism of Wiseman's

terminology appeared, there was an editorial piece, entitled " Study of

traditional Chinese medicine-- which is after all the right way? "

Article reference: Chin J. Integr Med 2005 Dec;1),pp 241?242.

 

Intro:

 

" The study of traditional (TCM) with modern research

approach has been ongoing for more than half a century. Although great

achievement has been made, the progress is less significant when compared

with the advance made in other scientific disciplines such as Western

medicine (WM). TCM development has reached a crucial point in the era of

rapid development of modern sciences and technologies. Whether or not and

how to incorporate contemporary sciences and advanced technologies into the

study of TCM has been a hot topic discussed in the academics in China.

Different schools of thought have been surfaced and debated. In this article

we present these views as well as our own opinions over the direction of

TCM development. "

 

Some people argue that Chinese medicine should not be subjected to modern

research methods:

" Introducing modern medicine and scientific means into the study of TCM will

alter or misinterpret the essence of TCM and finally lead to the vanishing

or distinction of the ancient art. "

Some argue that Western methods are not applicable to Chinese medicine

because of a different paradigm:

" TCM originated in ancient times in accordance with the science and

technologies of that time. It was developed under the influence of simple

materialism and spontaneous dialectics. "

The authors of the article argue in favour of modern research:

" The ancient theories and rich experiences of TCM is not flawless, having

limitations both in its theory and practice. The understanding and

interpretation of the success and limitation of TCM can only be accomplished

with the assistance of modern scientific approaches. "

The article goes on about a possible integration of Chinese and Western

medicine, which is encouraged by the Chinese government. Although this

integration is not without its problems and is only in its initiative phase,

they believe that the outcome justifies the difficulties one may encounter

in the process:

" Relatively speaking, TCM emphasizes the macroscopic view and entirety,

while WM emphasizes the microscopic view and individual parts. Integrating

the two medicines involves identifying ways to complement each other and

developing more efficacious and safer therapies. "

And the issue comes back to terminology when they are criticising flaws in

Chinese medical theory (without giving any examples though):

" We believe that the objective and normative expressions in TCM are based on

classical Chinese physiology and experiences. The connotations of some basic

concepts are very vague, which severely limits the development of TCM itself

In addition,TCM could not have enough incorporated into the nature in

modern times. It is our belief that the fundamental theories of TCM need to

be enriched and developed. This can be accomplished by:(I)enhancing their

reference sorting and translation into the modern language; (2) summarizing

clinical works, experiances and literature reviews so as to propose new

hypotheses, explore new principles and form new theories. Only by so doing

can TCM be truly inherited and further developed. "

The authors of the article are Chen Ke-ji and Li Li-zhi. I have never heard

of them before, but they seem to have done some research on new Chinese

herbal treatments.

They do touch on some subjects which may not have easy answers to them: can

and should Chinese medicine be proven with modern scientific methods?

There was an editorial in the Lantern magazine (May 2004), entitled " The

Tyranny of the microscope. " making its point that Chinese medicine can and

does deal with the uncertainty of life, without concrete evidence like lab

tests etc.

From this editorial piece (probably written by Steve Clavey) I do get an

impression -my own impression- that they feel that Chinese medicine may

somehow be superior to the microscope, and may often yield results where

other Western therapies fail. This may well be so, but it is not ALWAYS true

I have an ALS patient whose health is slowly getting worse and worse, and

while Chinese medicine may have some effect on some ALS sufferers, wouldn't

it be nice to know how many patients would statistically respond to CM

treatments, and which treatment methods would have more effect?

The other day I was reading in Alon's book, noticing that in his experience

herbs that Invigorate Kidney and Liver often do not work well in chronic

impediment patterns. Wouldn't it be nice to know why? Is it because there

are limits to invigorating?

What are the limits of Chinese medicine? How does a 'master'practitioner

differ from younger disciple-practitoners? Is Chinese medicine truly an

art-form which can only be understood through inner experiences (Qi Gong,,

meditation) so we can grasp the true significance of Jing, Qi and Shen? And

while we're on the topic: there are so many ways to explore one's inner

worlds. Daoism is only one of those, others also have their merits. If

Daoism (and its consequent theories of Yin, Yang, Jing, Qi and Shen) is only

out of many ways to explore the inner territories, there must be several

limits to it, no?

I wish I could have some clear answers to these questions...in the mean time

I guess I have to live with the limits I encounter (or is that the answer to

my question , I wonder aloud.)

Oh by the way you may email me for a copy of the article I started this post

with.

Best regards to y'all,

 

Tom.