Comments on: Phenomenology and Classical Chinese medicine : brief conclusions, opening doors http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/ Chinese Medicine Mon, 21 May 2012 00:55:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Eric Grey http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2878 Eric Grey Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:53:14 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2878 I agree, this is a major danger of involving government regulation and/or adding layers of bureaucracy. One major problem in "letting the market decide" is simply the amorphous nature of medicine - particularly in the realm of "preventative medicine." Another problem is the tendency for patients to project hopes & dreams onto practitioners, thus creating unhealthy levels of attachment to the practitioner and the medical approach. The first problem arises because safety over long term use is difficult to assess. Is using a formula (or drug) to suppress some aspect of the patient's physiology going to cause damage to their long term viability? How will the patient know? It's easy enough to deflect those worries in an open market environment. While it's possible that non-governmental, non-bureaucratic entities are best to regulate & disseminate this kind of information, but it's still a concern. I'm surely not saying that government is the BEST purveyor of this type of information. The second is a worry because of the ability for people to be manipulated in an open market environment. Unsafe practices are going on all around us, even with ostensibly draconian governmental controls. This, of course, shows that they are not very effective - but also makes us need to consider what would take their place. I agree, this is a major danger of involving government regulation and/or adding layers of bureaucracy. One major problem in “letting the market decide” is simply the amorphous nature of medicine – particularly in the realm of “preventative medicine.” Another problem is the tendency for patients to project hopes & dreams onto practitioners, thus creating unhealthy levels of attachment to the practitioner and the medical approach. The first problem arises because safety over long term use is difficult to assess. Is using a formula (or drug) to suppress some aspect of the patient’s physiology going to cause damage to their long term viability? How will the patient know? It’s easy enough to deflect those worries in an open market environment. While it’s possible that non-governmental, non-bureaucratic entities are best to regulate & disseminate this kind of information, but it’s still a concern. I’m surely not saying that government is the BEST purveyor of this type of information.

The second is a worry because of the ability for people to be manipulated in an open market environment. Unsafe practices are going on all around us, even with ostensibly draconian governmental controls. This, of course, shows that they are not very effective – but also makes us need to consider what would take their place.

]]> By: Eric Grey http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2877 Eric Grey Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:38:42 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2877 Oh, I have no doubt he would disagree with a number of my comments. I should say that I'm not so much a "fan of Goethe." It's just more that I recognize that he's one of the few Westerners who posits a type of scientific inquiry that seems thoroughly in line with classical Chinese medicine. Cool guy, no doubt, but we'd probably fail to agree on a few points. :) Oh, I have no doubt he would disagree with a number of my comments. I should say that I’m not so much a “fan of Goethe.” It’s just more that I recognize that he’s one of the few Westerners who posits a type of scientific inquiry that seems thoroughly in line with classical Chinese medicine. Cool guy, no doubt, but we’d probably fail to agree on a few points. :)

]]> By: Li http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2876 Li Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:08:43 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2876 I know you're a fan of Goethe Eric, did you know he was also a pretty thorough going Classical Liberal? http://mises.org/daily/357 As such, I don't think he would agree about the usefulness of the "external government controls" in your point two. I know you’re a fan of Goethe Eric, did you know he was also a pretty thorough going Classical Liberal?

http://mises.org/daily/357

As such, I don’t think he would agree about the usefulness of the “external government controls” in your point two.

]]> By: Li http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2875 Li Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:35:58 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2875 "We need not abandon the analytical tradition or the fine tools brought to us by contemporary Western medical practice. But nor should we attempt to eradicate all systems of medicine that fail to meet our ideological standards concerning evidence. Condemning disciplines based on ideological notions of “pseudoscience” cannot be helpful for patients." I have an idea for how this can be done - take centralised power to regulate backed by force away from all medicine. It would be nice, but I argue is not possible, to have everyone/every school of thought respect each other without going relativistic (which has its own dangers) - non-integral criticism of other practices will always exist. And as long as that centralised power exists, those that are motivated to control others will spend most resources on getting it. "A more inclusive approach respects the integrity of safe, integral and mature disciplines while acknowledging the need for the public to feel reasonably assured concerning their safety and effectiveness." I think that is great, and in a free market for medicine, those that adopt that approach should do well and be rewarded for their skill at applying it. That's the public's relationship to the unique individual practitioner. If we start thinking in abstract collectives, where it is about a whole professional group's relationship to the public, it leads to a danger in using government to force people think the same way, and/or delegitimise those that don't. “We need not abandon the analytical tradition or the fine tools brought to us by contemporary Western medical practice. But nor should we attempt to eradicate all systems of medicine that fail to meet our ideological standards concerning evidence. Condemning disciplines based on ideological notions of “pseudoscience” cannot be helpful for patients.”

I have an idea for how this can be done – take centralised power to regulate backed by force away from all medicine. It would be nice, but I argue is not possible, to have everyone/every school of thought respect each other without going relativistic (which has its own dangers) – non-integral criticism of other practices will always exist. And as long as that centralised power exists, those that are motivated to control others will spend most resources on getting it.

“A more inclusive approach respects the integrity of safe, integral and mature disciplines while acknowledging the need for the public to feel reasonably assured concerning their safety and effectiveness.”

I think that is great, and in a free market for medicine, those that adopt that approach should do well and be rewarded for their skill at applying it. That’s the public’s relationship to the unique individual practitioner.

If we start thinking in abstract collectives, where it is about a whole professional group’s relationship to the public, it leads to a danger in using government to force people think the same way, and/or delegitimise those that don’t.

]]> By: Li http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2874 Li Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:01:54 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-2874 From Eric's article: "External governmental controls could also be developed that both respect the integrity of the community of practitioners while providing the public with a sense of safety." If we are going by historical record as a legitimate source of evidence, I would argue this is not possible with this method. Government control on/imposition of standards not only politicises and institutionalises differences within communities. For medicine it also muddies the patient and practitioner encounter, and certainly hasn't helped reduce the harm done by western biomedicine (although, not unrelatedly, may have provided a public sense of safety). From Eric’s article:
“External governmental controls could also be developed that both respect the integrity of the community of practitioners while providing the public with a sense of safety.”

If we are going by historical record as a legitimate source of evidence, I would argue this is not possible with this method. Government control on/imposition of standards not only politicises and institutionalises differences within communities. For medicine it also muddies the patient and practitioner encounter, and certainly hasn’t helped reduce the harm done by western biomedicine (although, not unrelatedly, may have provided a public sense of safety).

]]> By: shercy ramos http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-1883 shercy ramos Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:20:23 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-1883 I agree with your second point, demonstrate its inclusion of a mature system of practitioner education and basic regulation of ongoing practitioner behavior. There has to be a concern for ethics among practitioners and not just a concern for profit. We should not short-change the clients, put them to risk, give false hopes or make them test subjects. I agree with your second point, demonstrate its inclusion of a mature system of practitioner education and basic regulation of ongoing practitioner behavior. There has to be a concern for ethics among practitioners and not just a concern for profit. We should not short-change the clients, put them to risk, give false hopes or make them test subjects.

]]> By: Larry http://deepesthealth.com/chinese-medical-theory-and-philosophy/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-1882 Larry Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:37:38 +0000 http://deepesthealth.com/2009/phenomenology-and-classical-chinese-medicine-brief-conclusions-opening-doors/#comment-1882 The fourth point that you make is great. (all are great but I epecially like the 4th). The specific chiropractic center demonstrates day in and day out through technology its effectiveness. What type of research are you using for safety? The fourth point that you make is great. (all are great but I epecially like the 4th).
The specific chiropractic center demonstrates day in and day out through technology its effectiveness. What type of research are you using for safety?

]]>