Does Chinese Medicine cure disease?
I’m writing an article for a class about using Chinese medicine to deal with common colds and flus. This is one of my passions (I know, weird) and something I feel the general public doesn’t really know about. In the past three years, I’ve suffered two external invasions, one more flu like and one more cold like. During the first two days of both, I went to the clinic. They both resolved the next day, with copious herb intake in the Shang Han Lun style. I’m a believer, you might say. Simply because of my personal experience? No, because of the countless people I’ve seen have similar experiences in clinic.
Everywhere I read about “finding a cure for the common cold” indicates that such a thing has not yet been achieved. The party line goes like this, “While there is no cure for the common cold, there are things you might be able to do to reduce its duration and severity.” Well… yeah. My question is this - how is that not a cure?
The dictionary definitions for cure are many, but the most relevant for our purposes recurrent themes:
A cure is a process
A cure does not indicate that the disease never occurs (that’s more like eradication)
A cure involves treatment
When people talk about “a cure for cancer” I don’t think they mean that cancer would never happen. While a vaccine for cancer (or the common cold) would be nice, usually that doesn’t seem to be what people are discussing. What we want is a way to avoid prolonged suffering and/or death at the hand of the disease process in question. We want, in essence, to reduce the illnesses duration and severity to minimal levels. We want to get better fast and suffer few lasting negative effects from our experience.
I think one other essential piece of the idea of curation involves the ability for the cure in question to be always and everywhere applicable. We wouldn’t call something a cure that sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t. That may be the info behind the claim that no “cure” for the common cold has been found. That being said, under the care of a competent Chinese medical practitioner, I do believe that rectification of cold and flu symptoms can be reliably achieved. If under such circumstances a person still suffers from their symptoms or, perhaps, even worsens (developing phlegm deep in the lungs, for example) this is likely due to some misunderstanding on the part of the practitioner about the pre-existing state of the patient’s body constitution. This is the case, I think, with any medical therapy and any disease. Consider any disorder we consider to be “cured” in modern medical practice. If a person displays with that illness and the therapy is inappropriately applied or some pre-existing condition of the patient renders the therapy ineffective, we don’t cast shadows on the ability of that therapy to be curative for that disease.
For Chinese Medicine, curing a disease simply involves a restoration of the body’s natural balance. Yin and Yang come into appropriate relationship with one another and all the seasons of the body come in their course with a typical expression. The body responds easily to normal daily stresses and no symptoms of blockage (pain, pathological products) exist. Chinese medical therapies, when applied consistently and competently, rectify the state of health for many conditions for many people. Wouldn’t you say?
What is your understanding of “cure”? What would it take for you to consider the common cold to be “cured”? I’ll be interested to read your thoughts in the comments.
Eric
If you like what you read here, you may want to keep updated by using my RSS feed. Want to know more about RSS/feeds? - read more here. Thanks for visiting!
Tags: chinese-herbs, cold, common cold, cure, cure for the common cold, disease, external invasion, flu, health
Related posts
Comments
39 Responses to “Does Chinese Medicine cure disease?”
Leave a Reply
-
-
What am I up to?
-
Subscribe to Deepest Health
If there’s one thing we do well, it’s deal with cold and flu. Since I figured out what to do about such things, it’s a rarity for me to see an invasion in me or the mrs. last more than 24 hours because via needles or cups or herbs or whatever fits the situation it gets booted right back out as soon as I realize it’s there. I think when people start figuring out that Chinese Medicine isn’t “for pain” but rather “for frickin everything” things are going to get very interesting.
Michael,
I totally agree. One of the cornerstones of my CM practice will definitely be education along these lines. A good catchphrase, “CHINESE MEDICINE: IT’S FOR EVERYTHING.”
Eric
Hi Eric,
The ‘cure’ in ‘no cure for the common cold’ probably means that it will recur (because the bugs mutate).
But from the point of view of those suffering one, when we say ‘cure’ we just want the thing gone and to be healthy again.
My definition of cure is from the point of view of the sick person. Being able to restore them to health.
Hi Eric,
This is a good question, because just last week I was having a discussion with a friend about CM and she caught me using the word cure, and so asked me, “Shouldn’t you use the word treat, instead of cure”. I didn’t know how to respond because with her job she works within a western medical paradigm, so the word cure is about as taboo to the western allopathic medical paradigm as the use of black magic is in the U.S.
Allopathic medicine does not cure disease because it always treats the signs and symptoms and supresses them. This can lead to a disease pattern lying dormant and manifesting elsewhere in the body at a later time. Also, it uses invasive procedures to completely wipeout the enemy. These are not true cures, but rather treament methods that go against the Hippocratic oath by doing harm to the body in attempt to make things right. Working on the physical level means you can’t cure disease, because most disease starts on a non-material level, with the exception of trauma related problems, which we could even argue are possibly of a karmic, or spiritual nature.
CM can treat energetically on a mental, emotional, or spiritual level, and so has the potential to cure. Western allopathic medicine doesn’t cure diseases, and so is skeptical of other medical systems making these claims. Afterall, we are only complimentary and alternative healthcare, not primary care, so what do we know, right?
Michael is right though, we can’t really claim to cure a common cold. In my opinion, to claim to be able to cure would imply that we have a treatment plan that is going to work for everyone everytime, and this, in one sense, goes against CM philosophy of treating the indvidual in front of you. Common cold manifest differently in different people, so we need to me able to modify formulas to fit the indvidual in front of us right now. Besides, a common cold resolves on its own, so it is hard to prove that the medicine is helping the body do the work. I think treatment applies best to these kinds of problems, but cure would be appropriate for diseases that otherwise would not resolve on their own.
For example, if you are treating a cancer patient who eventually is completely eradicated from the disease, then you can say you treated and cured cancer.
Have a good weekend,
Delli
I am maintaining my humble contention that Zhang Zhong Jing is perhaps the single person who has exerted the greatest influence in medicine in the entire history of the world.
Also things would be easier if we could still get Ma Huang (for example).
I think you have a point Eric.
I think that as the wider world looks at Chinese Medicine, it doesn’t see us as curing the common cold. It doesn’t mean they won’t come to us for help but from the mind of a lay person we can’t tell them exactly what to do for each cold. Each cold is looked at individually.
In the West all colds are created equal. Of course we have several diagnosis’ and then we have to take into account the patient’s constitution before we treat. Because of this our cures only work “some of the time” because each cure would not cure all the other colds (which are the same in Western thinking).
I think one important point we need to work on in saying we can cure this is by making sure we are using the same language. We need to teach our patients that all colds are not “colds” but rather each have their own characteristics that help us cure them.
Evan,
Interesting - I didn’t think about the recurrence thing. That’s really not part of my definition of curation, and I don’t reckon that it ever has been. Interesting…
I like your definition. Patient focused is the way to go.
e
Abdallah,
I know our clinic is still able to get Ma Huang in granule form through one distributor or another. Have you looked far and wide? I wish we could get it in bulk, though. That’s why I find political engagement to be so important - marshalling our voices together and wresting control of our medicine back from bureaucrats is definitely Sagely behavior. :)
e
Bonnie,
All of your points are great ones. I think that’s my wider point. While Western medicine may not say we have a “cure for the common cold” because we don’t have one remedy that cures every cold for everyone, I do think we have something better.
That is - a true cure. Something that works for real people in real time.
Eric
Delli,
Interesting about the distinction between what would have resolved on its own versus what wouldn’t have. I think that’s a pretty slippery slope. While colds often resolve on their own, they don’t always. I think some would argue that none of them truly do - they always dive deeper into the body and do at least a little bit of damage which must be rectified with some type of treatment (interventional or otherwise).
Good points to ponder,
e
Hi Eric,
Yes, it is true that a person can become seriously ill from a cold or flu, but usually they resolve on their own without any residual damage. From a CM perspective, a cold is an external invasion, and so it does not usually enter the deeper layers and get stuck there if the person’s wei qi is healthy enough to stop the attack at the surface. In my opinion, non-external invasions we must really worry about the disease pattern becoming stuck in body, but it would not be a major concern of mine when talking about an acute cold unless it is lingering or the person is elderly or has a weak constitution.
From a western scientific perspective we can prove that Chinese herbs are anti-viral, ani-bacterial, etc, but very little in depth scientific testing has been done with our herbs. If the herbs worked so well that all signs and symptoms resolved immediately upon administration, maybe then I would reconsider my definition of cure and say colds are cureable with herbs, but it doesn’t work this way, and so it is impossible to “prove” that the herbs are responsible for the actions when the signs and symptoms could disappear anyday on their own.
If you go around telling people you can cure something, it immediately raises their expectations from you, and consequently will most likely set you and them up for disappointment. If you are making claims to cure disease before you even treat a person, well people are going to start thinking your a quack if it doesn’t work 100% of the time. We need to be careful with what we say to the general public, because we want to keep a good reputation as our industry slowly accumulates more credibility. That is why I think we can treat a person with a cold, and if the signs and symptoms go away, we can say we successfully treated a patient with a cold, but we still have no proof to what degree the herbs were responsible compared to the body’s own immune response.
Anonymous,
You’ve described what is, actually, part of my point. It is my opinion that nearly all (if not all) of medical intervention actually relies on the patient’s immune response (however we understand immune responses). While herbs/drugs/etc may have this or that property, in the end it is what our body does with them that counts. For instance, my body tends to do opposite things with drugs that they are intended to do. Pain medications that are meant to make me drowsy do little for my pain and actually keep me awake all night!
Of course some drugs/herbs may have antiviral, etc properties. Of course this would seem to have something to do with the fact that they kill viruses, etc… But in the end, it is a stimulus on the part of the doctor that evokes some particular response on the part of the patient’s body.
So, then, what is a cure? In general - for whatever medicine. What does it mean to cure?
Eric
Hi Delli and Eric,
The distinction between symptoms and cause is a slippery one too. If we don’t treat the symptoms what else do we do. If the symptoms don’t go away the treatment has hardly been successful.
Hi Evan,
Yes, we must resolve the signs and symptoms to be successful, especially from the patient’s perspective. From the practitioner’s perspective, I believe we must also treat the root (cause) of the problem for it to be a success. Just dealing with the leaves and branches (signs and sx) is NOT holistic medicine. Classical Chinese medicine is meant to be holistic, and so we must not use reductionist or “cookbook” medicine like most medical systems.
-Delli
Hi Delli,
Treating signs and symptoms and the cause (by killing the bug for instance) can fit into a reductionist approach - like that of much western medicine - so I’m not sure what you mean by wholistic and reductionist.
I agree we need to treat the roots, not the branches. My point was we know we have done this by the disappearance of the symptoms. You may have other ways in mind, eg. change in pulse qualities. Is this what you mean?
Hi Evan,
If we get in a habit of using only reductionist thinking in the clinic then we are focusing on the microscopic (material or cellular level). Classical Chinese medicine uses more of a whole systems or holistic paradigm which focuses on the macrocosm (how the various systems of the body interact) as well as the microcosm. I can recommend you read the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot or The Self-Organizing Universe by Erich Jantsch if you are interested in learning more about this paradigm shift in thinking which is contrary to the Descartes reductionist way of thinking.
It is said in the Chinese classics that, “the high level physician grasps spirit”. The goal is to understand the essence of the person in front of you and treat the points that will correct that person on the level of shen, because shen (consciousness) creates energy (qi) and energy creates (matter). If you can treat the shen then it can fix any mental and physical imbalances because it is the creator/origin of matter. These principles are in line with the Chinese philosophy of the medical classics, and the medical sages very much understood these principles.
That is why we don’t have to treat locally in acupuncture, because the qi can be activated at one point travel through the channels and influence other parts of the body. The TCM lines are a way of standardizing the medicine in a way that gives it a more cookbook approach to Chinese medicine that was not intended by the ancient sages, in my opinion. In one way, it is very helpful to learn, but in another way it can easily lead us astray from the creative, artistic part of practicing this beautiful medicine. Besides, how often do the tongue and pulse actually match the signs and symptoms? It seems the picture presented in the clinic might not match one of these lines, and so we must be able to think creatively to come up with a treatment plan.
Also, from a CM point of view, the cold is not caused by a bug, but rather by the liuqi. You and I came up with different causes for the the same illness because we are working within different medical paradigms. Bug or virus, bacteria, etc. is a Western term, while CM would blame the signs and sx on wind, heat, cold, etc. They are similar ideas in some respect, but we can’t equate them. I think of the invasion occuring because of an imbalance in the body or a constitutional cause, or lack of proper care FIRST, and then as a consequence the the bug, wind, or whatever you call it can make it past the defense barriers of body (LU and Taiyang).
Hope this helps,
Delli
Hi Delli,
Wholistic is used with a variety of meanings. For me it is possible to be spiritually or mentally reductionist - eg Louise Hay: everything comes down to how we think. I think this is just as crass and reductionist as: everything comes down to the material level. For me wholistic isn’t about size or the part but seeing that which is being studied in relationship. For me wholistic means multi-dimensional and in context.
Actually we don’t have a different of the cause of disharmony. Many of us carry the mononucleosis bug at any one time but most of us aren’t sick with it.
I think western and CM terms can be equated because western and eastern people get sick and get healed in the same way (the points work on people whatever part of the world they are in).
Trust this makes sense. Evan
Interesting discussion, Delli and Evan. I agree, Evan, that watching signs and symptoms (which includes the pulse and tongue readings) indicate to us the reality of the change in the patient. If we have done a great “holistic” treatment and are very proud of ourselves, but the signs and symptoms haven’t changed a bit - we’ve failed. There will always be SOME change if the treatment is right, whether the patient feels that right away or not is another question. It may be that by treating the cause we don’t treat some of the symptoms that the patient is concerned about, which is why most of us are taught to also do something for those bothersome symptoms if we feel our main treatment won’t do anything to them quickly.
Ideally, aiming at the cause takes care of the whole variety of symptoms that the patient is aware of.
Now… I’m a little confused about this whole discussion about Western versus Chinese medicine. I’m not sure that you can say that “killing the bug” is treating the cause. I’m SURE you can say that in a Western medical paradigm. Some advanced Western doctors may look farther and say, “You’re getting these bugs a lot - let’s look at your immune system,” but they’ll often be at a loss as to what to do with that information unless a significant material pathology (ie material lack or impediment of some class of immune cell) presents itself. Even THIS would not be looking at the root cause, necessarily - at least not from a Chinese medicine perspective.
The root cause is deeper - what caused that abberation of the body? Even if Western medicine tried to delve deeper they would be looking for a MATERIAL cause of the situation. Down down down, smaller smaller smaller.
We have a functional and a TIME based perspective. We look at layers of function melded with structure (ie conformations), we look at the development of disease through time, we look at the influence of the mental, spiritual and atmospheric. We gaze into this field of interacting symbols and try to find the root of the dysfunction, and begin there.
I fail to see how the fact that Western and Eastern people both become ill is proof of anything. I also think the idea that they are both healed in the “same way” is debatable. We’re not talking about the difference between two types of people, here, we’re looking at the effectiveness of two very different paradigms of medicine. I don’t believe that anything like equation is possible, personally.
Can you trust that makes sense?
Eric
A couple of things.
Reductionism and materialism aren’t identical. It’s just that materialism is the dominant form of reductionism in the west.
And no, it doesn’t make sense. Do you really think that a chinese and western person getting acupuncture heal in different ways? This is what I meant to say - perhaps not too clearly. Western people could describe the process of healing from an energetic perspective - building on Reich perhaps. Fortunately I don’t think we need to put in the centuries of work this would require as CM has already done this for us. It is the similarity of experience between people of any location that allows the equation of their medical modalities. The modalities may be different but the people are the same (in my view).
I agree that reductionism and materialism aren’t identical - I think that mistake is made a lot. Most of the time it’s just because people don’t think this through too much. Sometimes it’s a simple mistake.
What you’ve said makes more sense now that you explained it. People’s bodies around the world heal similarly, certainly. Western people definitely could describe things differently. At NCNM we are privileged to share our halls with Naturopathic students, some of which are attempting to see the body in a more holistic manner. One of our professors (he teaches naturopathic and Chinese medicine classes) is absolutely BRILLIANT and is a phenomenological physician in the tradition of Rudolf Steiner.
Regardless - the idea that Western and Chinese terms can be equated is still seriously debatable IMHO. If mainstream Western medicine were to veer SIGNIFICANTLY off of its current *entirely* materialistic trajectory - such as incorporating insights from Steiner - then we might be able to have those conversations. As things stand? Any equating of terms is going to be an intellectual exercise at best, an attempt at intellectual imperialism at worst.
But, then, I’m feeling dramatic tonight…
e
Hi Eric,
I mostly agree about the equation of terms. Different languages ’slice up’ the world differently.
However if people experience roughly the same things and language (at least a good deal of the time) approximately describes this experience . . .
Unlike most I don’t think we need to know Mandarin to do acupuncture. I think the focus should be on the experience not the language. But I do think that introducing the language can be helpful - it gives labels to our experience: we perhaps understand our experience in ways we never had before.
Hi Eric and Evan,
Yes, I agree with the two of you that materialism and reductionism are not the same. I would say that in terms of allopathic medicine they almost completely interchangeable, but if we are talking about CM they are not interchangeable.
I guess I would agree that in a general sense people’s body’s function similarily, otherwise how could we even describe the functions of the organs systems and attribute properties to them? Certainly though the external environment and internal environment of the body play a role in what types of problems people enounter and how they heal. People can heal/treat the same disease with different tools as well such as herbs, acupuncture, essential oils, supplements all can effectively treat a cold or external invasion. Everyone will respond differently though, so that is why we can’t assume Gui Zhi Tang is going to make any person’s signs and symptoms go away if they have a cold.
Chinese and English language are so different that it is hard to equate them. Think of how vastly different all the translations are of any ancient Chinese you have read. Orginally, they used pictographs and characters only, so no pinyin existed. Although words and characters are both symbols, I feel that the Chinese characters are much more powerful, meaningful, and “alive”. The way the character is written tells you something about its energetic nature that gets lost in translation because the characters are so deep and multi-layered. One character often must be described with a couple sentences instead of a single word. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation and error, so it is best to study the characters from the classics to derive your own meaning to give you a clear understanding. Sometimes this is very helpful.
Lastly, to each his own. I do not think your wrong Evan, I just think you have a much different mindset on medicine. I guess every system has its strengths and weaknesses, but in the end you need to follow your heart and practice the medicine the way you know best. The one thing I will never forget from first year of school at NCNM was when Heiner Freuhauf would constantly remind us, “you need to make the medicine your own”. This is what I truely believe makes a good practitioner.
Goodnight,
Delli
Hi Delli,
I’m not sure what you think my mindset is.
I certainly agree each needs to make the medicine their own.
Hi Evan,
I don’t know what your mindset is at all, because I am not a mind reader. However, because I choose to make the medicine my own I envision my practice as being unique in that it won’t look like the standard Chinese Medicine practice. So I just presume no matter if you practice allopathic, TCM, CCM, or any other kind of medicine you must have a slightly varying philosopy, methodology, and vision then me. That is all I meant.
Goodnight,
Delli
Hi Eric, Evan, Delli and all others involved in this interesting discussion,
I’ve been thoroughly enjoying this discussion and would only like to pose a few questions.
What I think we need to look at is what the role of the physician really is. Are we directly attacking the pathogens, directly changing the body, directly taking away symptoms? If we are, then we are acting invasively and not holistically. Holistic medicine supports the body’s own ability to heal, it guides the way and absolultely does not harm the body while attempting to heal it.
Thus, what we need is a system of understanding, a coherent perspective that is complete and holistic. We cannot be holistic physicians if we are not working with a system of holism. This means that we are working with physiology, shen, qi transformation, and most especially with the body’s Yang. If we use the body’s resources to make them feel better, for instance using Yinqiao San for every sore throat or Sijunzi Tang for “Qi deficiency”, then we are not actually supporting the body, or treating holistically, but are palliating symptoms and working without a consistent system of understanding.
That is why I think we need to know really what we are doing, not just what works. What physiological system are we rooted in? Are we looking for material pathogens or are we following the five element and six qi model of understanding? Are we following the pathway of Qi and blood in the body, the movement of Yang or the metabolism of jinye from a classical perspective, or are we superimposing a western bio-medical perspective upon it? Are we working with the six conformations as well as the five elements within the body? What are we really doing as Chinese medical practitioners?
It seems to me that the answers to these questions will surely lead us to a deeper understanding of what it means to facilitate a cure as well as a deeper understanding of health.
Thanks for the discussion (and it’s nice to see Delli involved in this discussion!)
Michael
michael
Thanks Michael. Beautifully put.
There is much to respond to here and I need to go out now. Back in a few hours.
Evan
Michael,
I totally agree - we must understand what is going on, not just watch for the cessation of symptoms. That being said, it is still of course important that we watch for the cessation of symptoms! :)
But the system is definitely the key. A system that is coherent, complete (insofar that this is possible) and focused on the wholeness of nature will surely guide us as physicians to an appropriate intervention that will yield tangible results in both the short term and the long term.
Eric
Back again.
Totally complete probably isn’t possible. I’d say good enough to get the reliable results required.
I completely agree we need a way of understanding.
For me wholism embraces not only the parts of the individual and their complex interaction. It also has to do with the context in which the individual lives.
I think external intervention has a place eg drinking a herbal decoction. But it is best if this treatment does not have side effects (which herbs properly prescribed don’t and western drugs usually do).
For me CM has a much more wholistic view of what happens within the individual. But it needs to be supplemented by understanding the context. (For all the propaganda about the West being more individualistic it was the West that came up with public health. This is entirely foreign to CM - though with it’s genius for absorption I don’t think it need stay foreign.
I think the role of the healer is central. I like to think that in acupuncture the healer can be a collaborator rather than a distant expert - though they do have detailed knowledge to be used for the benefit of the person being healed.
This is a very rich, complex and important discussion I think. Heartfelt thanks to all contributors.
Hi Evan and Michael,
Evan, I fully agree that the healer is involved with the process. Often I have heard practitioners of various types of holistic medicine say, “the body heals itself” without explaining what this means. If this statement were true then we would not need doctors or the field of medicine. I view the healing process as a trinity between the patient, doctor, and spirit. Sometimes the body can heal itself without any additional resources like a minor cut, bruise, cold, and so on, but other times an outside force must be used to stimulate the healing force. We can do this with herbs, acupuncture, moxa, or from an allopathic perspective with drugs or surgery. Some cases, neither the body nor the tools are responsible for the healing, but rather the spirit. The human body is a sacred vessel for spirit, but often times people have a void and this can lead to mental/emotional/physical imbalance. I believe that the role of the physician is to support the person on their spiritual journey as well, not just focusing on the physical signs and symptoms. My role is to hold that sacred space so that the patient can open up to a higher level of consciousness. Every human being possesses this universal consciousness, but only in spiritually developed beings is it accessible. If we can create AWARENESS through INTENTION then we can earn the respect of our patients and they can truely open themselves up to what we say and will follow our instructions. For example, some people get sick because they eat an unhealthy diet. It is our job then as “spirit guides” to make them aware of which foods they should cut out of the diet or which foods they should start eating. People that are less developed on a spiritual level may not even be aware that canned foods are not so healthy, or that GMO’s may contain serious health risks. We must enlighten these beings to the truth by connecting them with their consciousness if we are to be successful holistic practitioners.
I am studying Spiritual Phytoessencing with Dr. Bruce Berkowsky currently, and he often talks about how he uses the “I-Thou” philosophy of Martin Buber when conducting his anamenesis (intake). This means you do not address the patient as an “it” but rather as an “I” being. We must meet the person on a soul-to-soul level in order to be able to truely see and understand the essence of the person we are treating. It is sacred meeting of beings. He states that only from this place can deep psycho-spiritual work take place. I agree with him that we should always try to work on this level if we see our role as physcians to be truely holistic.
I also agree with Evan that a “complete” system of medicine is not realistic. The Chinese medical system is as complete a system as any out there, but I feel the need to integrate aspects of other holistic therapies in order for it to be more “complete”. Afterall, I have been studying holistic medicine for ten years now, so am I not going to just throw out everything else I have learned along the way and practice Chinese medicine. Not a chance. I have studied with many great teachers, and so I must learn to integrate all of this knowledge to a coherent system that can be consistent and get results. This is a challenge, but Chinese medicine gives us the freedom to do this because of the underlying universal principles which can be applied to any place, person, or time period. Thus, my thesis will be my attempt to create my system of medicine that will work for me. I am sorry, but TCM and 5 element theory just don’t sit right with me, they feel, for lack of a better word, incomplete. We all have different experiences and beliefs based on our own internal filters as well as who we study with, so even if two people go to the same school and learn the same material, they still might not see things the same in the clinic.
Michael, I have a question for you. What does it mean to first do no harm? This is a question I have been asking myself recently. It is interesting to think about. I believe in the Hippocratic oath too, but it seems like maybe it needs to be elaborated upon as well.
The only reason I bring this up is because our main modalities of treatment in CM are herbs and acupuncture. Herbs contain toxins, and can kill people as well as harm them. In acupuncture we are piercing the skin with a needle, so one might argue this is harming the skin. Maybe it is by “harming” the body we create a response which then allows the body to heal. The ancient Chinese character for alcohol [you] translates as poison [du], but yet they used alcohol for medicine. The ancient character [yi] for doctor or medicine shows a picture of a bow and arrow and a bag of tools. I think this is the correct etymology of these characters, but correct me if I am wrong.
I think this helps explain why we should seek medical advice from a qualified practitioner. The same substances that can heal us can harm us, so we need to be educated in how to use them- methods of administration, dosage, side effects, interactions, etc. in order to make sure we do no harm. Don’t forget about all the herbalists, kings, and alchemists who died along the way to further our medicine. They put the medicine before themselves to further the knowledge. This is a true sacrifice.
-Delli
Hi all,
What a fascinating subject! It seems to me that each of us will be working on (or perhaps should be working on) our role as healer throughout our years in practice, for essentially it is self-work. To meet each patient as a divine spiritual being seems to me to be the best approach we could have, but to assume that we are spiritually superior due to our knowledge and experience does not seem to me to be such a good idea. I do like the notion of a “spirit guide”, yet our patients are our “spirit guides” just as much.
It also seems to me that it is our obligation to cultivate ourselves academically, physically, mentally, emotionally and especially spiritually, so that we are receptive to knowing how to best be with each patient and provide the best care possible. The beauty of practicing medicine in this way is that it is individual; in this way, I am in awe everything that each practitioner could bring to his or her patients.
That being so, I still wish to clarify my concept of a “systematic” and “complete” medicine. I believe that it is very important for us to have a fundamental understanding of the medicine we are practicing. The reason for this is not just to stay true to our medicine, for I think we can explore new possibilities (like using essential oils on points, etc…) but only from a stable holistic foundation. The reason is because of the most fundamental code of medicine, which is one of the Naturopathic principles, and is from the Hippocratic oath: First do no harm. So, as Delli asked, what does this really mean and isn’t any intervention a form of harm?
To me, “First Do No Harm” can only be understood if one understands the basis for life and the foundation of spirit (since spiritual concepts have been brought into this discussion). What one must not harm is not the ego, not the skin, not the gut mucosa even, but the source and physiological basis for life. One must not harm the body’s Yang or Shen. This means that one must not interfere with the body’s ability to manifest its own processes. In fact, this means that one should not focus on killing bacteria or viruses or parasites even, but simply re-establish the body’s harmonious process of preserving and maintaining life, and all will be well. Parasites, bacteria and viruses will live and die as the body maintains its own integrity, but if Cold has damaged the body’s Yang, then regardless if you’ve eradicated the viruses in the body or not, there has been harm; if the body’s Yang has been damaged in the process of eradicating pathogens, then there has been harm.
So, we must intervene, but must not harm what is most essential. It is not our job to take away a spiritual, psychological or emotional process that a patient may need to go through; it is our job to support life and to encourage growth and transformation. To do this, I believe we need a sound understanding of the essential processes of life and as deep of a relationship to spirit as we can - not to super-impose our spiritual beliefs, but to have an awareness of our patients as divine beings. Also, this brings in the important role of higher spiritual faculties, such as inspiration and intuition, for I think these can lead us to more effective and supportive therapies. Nonetheless, without a firm root in a system of medicine, I think following our inspiration and intuition could lead to a chaotic and ego-centered treatment, which would lead to harm.
Due to this belief of mine, I do not think that an eclectic, or barefoot doctor or even an integrative approach is such a good idea, for I think that a specific point of view is essential; this is my call for a systematic medicine that is based on classical principles. Systematic medicine does not mean that all practitioners will look the same, not at all in fact; it means that the medicine, in whatever form it takes, is always based on a specific system of fundamental principles of life. Without this, we have to trust that the practitioner has super-spiritual abilities, which at this point of human evolution still seems pretty rare.
My apologies for such a lengthy comment…
Michael
Michael, I think you have made many fine points about the process of healing.
You have given me much food for thought. The comment was the perfect length this evening! Thank you!
Thanks Michael, eloquently put and with much depth and wisdom.
My only disagreement is about the foundation of the medicine. As it grows it will grow through a stage of eclecticism - incorporating the new material, concept, diagnostic modality, whatever - this is the only way I can see for growth to occur.
I think the principles need to be tested too - not just their application.
I do however think it is best to be solidly founded in a tradition before we seek to change it. Grabbing a bit of this and that is just shoddy and usually a cover for superficiality of understanding. There is a place for those who show a remarkable penetration and ask questions of a fundamental nature - these people are vital to the development of any modality. That they may come from ‘outside’ the field is not a problem for me. If their questioning shows understanding they are to be welcomed with open arms in my view. But these are rare beings - and so we should always be willing to check out whether someone is one of them.
I think we agree on fundamentals. But I do want to insert into the discussion the proces of growth.
Hi Michael,
I really like your answer of what it means to do no harm from a classical Chinese medicine point of view. That makes sense, because the goal is always to guard the shen 1st and foremost.
I used “spiritual guard” in quotations because I meant in the sense of educator. I was just showing that this part of the practice I equate with working with the soul of the individual directly. It is a face to face human interaction with great potential for creating growth and transformation. Growth and transformation comes from the core, the shen. I believe I am responsible to educate patients as part of my duty. We are educating them to help them move through life processes when they become stuck.
We must try and help in all respects. The “I-Thou” relationship means that you see the divine spark in the person in front of you, it does not mean you are superior, in actuality it means that you see the same in them as yourself. It is like looking in a mirror almost, and if you treat them with this respect they will reciprocate.
I too believe that my practice should be firmly rooted in the principles and foundations of CCM. However, I disagree that we can can not branch out from the medicine at all. Life and health are about movement. As time marches on we need to use this information and intergrate into the world we live in today.
This means utilizing new knowledge too “advance” our medicine. The theory of yin yang and five element are so powerful that they can be used to describe almost anything. This is because they are based on the movements of nature. I have to say my practice will not go against CCM principles, yet it will be integrative and suit my style. For isn’t this the nature of the Dao, paradox?
-Delli
Delli,
Thanks for the response. I feel that I may have not explained myself as clearly as I’d have liked, because I find myself agreeing completely with you about branching out and never intended to not include that. I am extremely excited about seeing what we all do with this amazing medicine and with our healing practices. I look forward to seeing you branching out. Right now, it’s the roots I’m concerned with.
Is the nature of the Dao paradox? Maybe Eric needs to write an article for us on the nature of the Dao! Perhaps we’ll find the discussion to be paradoxical, but what of the Dao?…
Thanks again Delli!
Michael
A question: what is the purpose of “branching out” “growth” and “advancement” with regards to Chinese medicine? What do we hope to achieve that cannot be achieved without this branching out, growth or advancement?
Also, do these apparently venerable goals necessitate the inclusion of materials or methods outside of the classics? If so, why? If not, why not?
Personally, I have absolutely zero desire to add modalities, diagnostics, materials or terminology to the classical versions of those which I am receiving in my schooling. I have a nearly insatiable desire to delve as deeply into those principles as I possibly can and to to learn to use those diagnostics, materials and modalities as well as I possibly can. My journey is ever into myself, dwelling ever deeper within nature, ever more open to the subtle yearnings of the human being and ever more penetratingly into the heart of the Classical teachings. I cannot imagine how I would have time to do anything else.
Those of you who do have the time and energy to do so apparently have deeper wells than I.
e
Hi Michael,
I think that sounds like a great idea for a future discussion! Perhaps I should have left out the word paradox and just had the ?. Maybe a symbol better describes the Dao rather than a word. The Dao is mysterious, but maybe my personal experience, or personal dao, has been a story of paradox. Afterall, I live in the US and study Chinese medicine. These kind of paradoxical themes come up in my life often, so that is why I said that orginally.
May the Dao be with you,
Delli
-Delli
[...] announcements. First, if you haven’t read through the comments on the last post, “Does Chinese Medicine Cure Disease,” I definitely recommend you do so. Second, if you have interest in following my progress in [...]
it strike me as more of a cure than western medicine that just attempted to cover up the problem.