At NCNM, we learn Western medicine as part of our Classical Chinese Medicine education. Part of that is simply because a working knowledge of biomedicine is necessary for licensure. Part of it is because it’s good to be able to talk to Western physicians and Western educated patients about things that they can easily understand. Part of it, for some people, is more than that. Our Western classes are, for the most part, taught by Naturopaths. These are folks who are already in deep dialogue with contemporary Western medicine since they represent both its past and its future. So it is natural for them to try to help us see how Chinese medicine and Western medicine theory can come into conversation.
This has been the effort of integrators in Chinese medicine for a long time. A slapdash and ill-informed effort to accelerate the conversation resulted in TCM, narrowly defined. The idea is interesting, truly. In theory, we are all talking about the same thing just emphasizing different portions and using different language. In the West, I think we are particularly interested in explaining Chinese medicine concepts through our own language because we seem to have such a hard time understanding other people’s languages. Materialism and dualism are powerful mind altering substances, to be sure – they make the mind cloudy.
But what, really, is the potential benefit of describing Chinese medicine concepts in Western medicine terms – and vice versa? What could be gained by melding these two medicines together? I already know the dangers. The most persistent danger and the one that has been most roundly realized is the possibility that Western medicine will come to dominate the relationship. In this way, Chinese medical professionals will be mandated to learn well everything in Western medicine – Chinese medical research will be required to meet Western standards. The parts of Chinese medical theory and practice that don’t fit easily into a Western context will be discarded. The reverse will not be true. Or, at least, it hasn’t been.
So what is to be gained by this relationship and how can we avoid, or counteract, the negative forces inherent in it? I’d love to hear your thoughts. I am well aware that there are examples of good interactions between the two medicines and I’d like to hear your stories concerning them.
Eric
Tags: traditional-chinese-medicine, integrative-medicine, western-science, Theory
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The major benefit I see (Dr. Tran again)is how narrowly/accurately you can ratchet down the focus of a treatment, particularly if you genuinely understand how the points work and what they are specifically doing. I think WM helps with the accuracy. However, as you said, if WM dominates the relationship, the quality of the medicine goes out the window and treatments won’t work.
I think that the better we understand WM the better we can bridge the language barrier with more conventional doctors. I know that when I go and do hospital health fairs, the more “scientific” I can sound the better rapport I get. Also, patients who are used to thinking in one paradigm will often respond better if you can speak their language.
While I agree with Michael about understanding what we are doing with acupuncture by having a deeper understanding of WM, I also feel that Tran is “translating” what we do from an acupuncture standpoint to a WM standpoint. In that sense, again, I think the need to understand WM is that it gives us a broader language to understand what is happening within our own medicine.
I have to wonder if this need is a somewhat cultural need?
How many of us have any reference to “qi” before becoming interested in either acupuncture (et al) or martial arts?
However, I don’t want to minimize the need to understand and be able to recognize when we need to refer out to someone else too.
What follows are hastily constructed impressionistic responses:
I have phrased my approach to this issue elsewhere as: Synthesizing biological, physiological, and anatomical detail with a holistic theoretical and treatment paradigm. A few other ways to put it: I’ve seen western-trained students struggle with Chinese concepts and then excel clinically. I’d rather see someone approach western medicine after having a thorough, experiential understanding of Chinese medicine. I’d rather learn histology from a yin/yang perspective than learn yin/yang from a histological background.
Also, look for an upcoming article by yours truly tentatively titled: “Why Cognitive Science will trump Quantum Physics in the Revolution of Consciousness.”
I am keenly interested in Integrative Medicine, but more like Geronimo carrying a rifle, than an upper-class hippie in a sweat lodge.
No Yi Jing= No computers.
Do I believe that Qi Gong can shrink tumors? Yes. Can it be done in a hospital? Yes.
What’s the missing factor? Rigor. You may get more of this at NCNM. Students at Dragon Rises College do. But science is defined as “knowledge severely tested,” and I regard everything as a heuristic device. Western medicine has got the rigor down. Show me an acupuncturist who is as thoroughly trained in our discipline as basically any family practice doctor is in western medicine. They exist but they are all-too rare.
We must not confuse the issue of power (WM dominating CM) with theoretical viability. Who is going to be truly capable of doing the theoretical work? Translation theory basically posits that the most suitable translator is a native speaker of the target language. Could this apply to the issue at hand?
Great thought-provoking post as usual.
Very timely post for me Eric as I am under some scrutiny by “rational” WM doctors on my site. You managed to write what I had in my head.
I agree with Abdallah’s concept of rigour. It is a great definition of what science does but those of us with a little TCM knowledge cannot offer.
As a shiatsu practitioner I essentially feel and act on intuition and can never form an argument to support my actions as acutely as those trained in the scientific method; especially as most of the source documents for my theory are in a language unknown to me.
Tony,
I say this first to myself. Learn the language of your source texts, and assess the concepts that you find there critically, then act on them from feeling and intuition. And, the language of the body is THE source language. Attend to it with acute attention: that’s rigor.
‘Abdallah
{ 3 trackbacks }