Pluralism in CM diagnosis

[Guest guest]

" In the 1992 report by the Xinhua News Agency stated that physicians of

Chinese medicine currently employ more than 100 different diagnostic

systems. At least seven methods of pattern differentiation are taught in

today's universities and colleges.. There is no agreement between physicians

about which method should be applied to a particular case, nor are there any

established mechanisms to bring about convergence. " (Volker Sheid, Chinese

medicine in contemporary China. p.30)

 

 

 

For anyone who is curious about how pluralistic Chinese medicine really is,

check out Chapter 2 of Volker's book, plurality and synthesis.

 

 

 

Now think about Dx and Tx over the past 2000 years.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<Chinese Medicine>

 

<Chinese Medicine>

 

tel:

<http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em

ail=>

www.Chinese Medicine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me

to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature

like this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And this is what sticks in the craw of the 'evidence-based medicine'

types and those who want to standardize studies of Chinese medicine.

How do you design studies, develop protocols, and produce a medicine

that can function inter-operatively with biomedicine if you have such

a potpourri of diagnostic systems and methods at play?

 

 

On May 14, 2007, at 5:54 AM, wrote:

 

> " In the 1992 report by the Xinhua News Agency stated that

> physicians of

> Chinese medicine currently employ more than 100 different diagnostic

> systems. At least seven methods of pattern differentiation are

> taught in

> today's universities and colleges.. There is no agreement between

> physicians

> about which method should be applied to a particular case, nor are

> there any

> established mechanisms to bring about convergence. " (Volker Sheid,

> Chinese

> medicine in contemporary China. p.30)

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" In the 1992 report by the Xinhua News Agency stated that physicians of

Chinese medicine currently employ more than 100 different diagnostic

systems. At least seven methods of pattern differentiation are taught in

today's universities and colleges.. There is no agreement between

physicians

about which method should be applied to a particular case, nor are

there any

established mechanisms to bring about convergence. " (Volker Sheid,

Chinese

medicine in contemporary China. p.30)

 

For anyone who is curious about how pluralistic Chinese medicine

really is,

check out Chapter 2 of Volker's book, plurality and synthesis.

 

Now think about Dx and Tx over the past 2000 years.

 

-

 

(sharon) Who could argue? Of course - yet - so easily this

plurality could be an excuse for doing what ever - a little of this,

a little of that.

 

And what is being called forth as a synthesis could so easily be a

watering down, reifying, misleading " system " that calls itself TCM.

So, what to do?

 

There are relevant themes, so to speak, running through all of these

systems that can inform the student/practitioner and be the

scaffolding needed to be ready to begin to integrate the variety.

These are, quite simply, the way things work. I mean the way things

work in nature and the way they correspondingly work in our bodies.

This up/down, hot/cold, in/out, yin/yang is universal and intrinsic

to the medicine no matter how pluralistic (though I am sure you will

find me examples of where it's not! ) But really, Chinese medical

science is the science of how things work in nature and therefore in

our bodies. All the methods have to work with the way nature works

and have to have a way of perceiving how it is not working correctly

in a particular case. In other words - what is the common ground

amidst the plurality in Chinese medicine? Also, is there a

foundational method of perceiving our patients that allows us to see

the bear bones dynamic and a way to articulate what we see that opens

the door to the plurality? I certainly don't deny the plurality but

I do see that what is taught in most schools does reify and rigidify

and must be unlearned for a practitioner to move toward anything

new. My experience with FDM (it's growing on me) is that it provides

just that foundation that allows us to go deeper and deeper and have

a grounded way to learn from the plural idiosyncrasies and streams of

our lineage.

 

Sharon

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon Weizenbaum

86 Henry Street

Amherst, MA 01002

413-549-4021

sweiz

www.whitepinehealingarts.com

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I agree, embracing plurality can lead to an 'anything goes'

attitude that will lead to creative, unconventional, but diagnostic

and treatment strategies rooted in fantasy.

Eclecticism needs to be informed by deep study and the

confirmation of clinical practice, otherwise it won't work. It will

just be a superficial skimming of several styles, a lot of sound and

fury leading to nothing.

Since so many alternative health practitioners are quite eclectic

and watered-down, it is something we need to watch out for.

This is why I think there needs to be an emphasis on developing

'expert systems' of great physicians past and present in Chinese

medicine. Jiao Shu-de's books have been presented in such a manner,

I believe.

 

 

On May 14, 2007, at 11:33 AM, sharon weizenbaum wrote:

 

> sharon) Who could argue? Of course - yet - so easily this

> plurality could be an excuse for doing what ever - a little of this,

> a little of that.

>

> And what is being called forth as a synthesis could so easily be a

> watering down, reifying, misleading " system " that calls itself TCM.

> So, what to do?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

I couldn't agree with you more. As a student just about to graduate I can tell

you that eclecticism leads to little or no result. Its an anything can cause

anything therefore anything can work attitude toward the medicine. There really

needs to be an emphasis on the great physicians of the past to come up with

'expert systems' that revolve around the fundamental theories of these docs.

Some students gravitate naturally toward a certain style which I believe will

help them in the long run. But most dabble in this and that and eventually start

using trick acupuncture and protocols on every patient.

My big question is what kind of impact will western scientific Ideas have on

Asian medicines? Many who practice Chinese medicine use functional endocrinology

for example. What do you all think about the merging of east and west? Do you

think people who practice should stick with that paradigm? or

should there be more integration.

Clint

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

Sharon,

I agree, embracing plurality can lead to an 'anything goes'

attitude that will lead to creative, unconventional, but diagnostic

and treatment strategies rooted in fantasy.

Eclecticism needs to be informed by deep study and the

confirmation of clinical practice, otherwise it won't work. It will

just be a superficial skimming of several styles, a lot of sound and

fury leading to nothing.

Since so many alternative health practitioners are quite eclectic

and watered-down, it is something we need to watch out for.

This is why I think there needs to be an emphasis on developing

'expert systems' of great physicians past and present in Chinese

medicine. Jiao Shu-de's books have been presented in such a manner,

I believe.

 

On May 14, 2007, at 11:33 AM, sharon weizenbaum wrote:

 

> sharon) Who could argue? Of course - yet - so easily this

> plurality could be an excuse for doing what ever - a little of this,

> a little of that.

>

> And what is being called forth as a synthesis could so easily be a

> watering down, reifying, misleading " system " that calls itself TCM.

> So, what to do?

 

[Guest guest]

Clinton,

I am not a proponent of the 'merging' of East and West for a

number of reasons. The integration of medicines is more than a

practical or theoretical phenomenon, it is also a social, economic

and political one. Chinese medicine comparatively is very weak, in

terms of funding, political status and media standing when compared

with biomedicine, both in China and abroad. This means that the true

power of Chinese medicine would be diluted in any official

integration of the two, or disappear altogether. Why should Chinese

medicine cross-fertilize only with biomedicine, when there are other

great medicines in the world such as homeopathy, naturopathy,

Ayurvedic and Tibetan medicine to cross-fertilize with?

Having said this, if a practitioner has a strong foundation in

Chinese medical philosophy (most of us do not), then one can interact

with biomedicine for whatever reasons are necessary. Endocrinology,

for example, like Chinese medicine has a 'systems theory' approach to

health and disease, although its pharmacological approach to

treatment is the same as the rest of biomedicine.

For myself, I entered the world of Chinese medicine thirty years

ago to study Chinese medicine, not some unsteady hybrid with

biomedicine. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and

should be studied and practiced on their own merits.

 

Z'ev ROsenberg

On May 15, 2007, at 4:49 PM, clinton bartok wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

> I couldn't agree with you more. As a student just about to graduate

> I can tell you that eclecticism leads to little or no result. Its

> an anything can cause anything therefore anything can work attitude

> toward the medicine. There really needs to be an emphasis on the

> great physicians of the past to come up with 'expert systems' that

> revolve around the fundamental theories of these docs. Some

> students gravitate naturally toward a certain style which I believe

> will help them in the long run. But most dabble in this and that

> and eventually start using trick acupuncture and protocols on every

> patient.

> My big question is what kind of impact will western scientific

> Ideas have on Asian medicines? Many who practice Chinese medicine

> use functional endocrinology for example. What do you all think

> about the merging of east and west? Do you think people who

> practice should stick with that paradigm? or

> should there be more integration.

> Clint

>

> <zrosenbe wrote: Sharon,

> I agree, embracing plurality can lead to an 'anything goes'

> attitude that will lead to creative, unconventional, but diagnostic

> and treatment strategies rooted in fantasy.

> Eclecticism needs to be informed by deep study and the

> confirmation of clinical practice, otherwise it won't work. It will

> just be a superficial skimming of several styles, a lot of sound and

> fury leading to nothing.

> Since so many alternative health practitioners are quite eclectic

> and watered-down, it is something we need to watch out for.

> This is why I think there needs to be an emphasis on developing

> 'expert systems' of great physicians past and present in Chinese

> medicine. Jiao Shu-de's books have been presented in such a manner,

> I believe.

>

>

> On May 14, 2007, at 11:33 AM, sharon weizenbaum wrote:

>

> > sharon) Who could argue? Of course - yet - so easily this

> > plurality could be an excuse for doing what ever - a little of this,

> > a little of that.

> >

> > And what is being called forth as a synthesis could so easily be a

> > watering down, reifying, misleading " system " that calls itself TCM.

> > So, what to do?

>

>