Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China
- PMID: 17664302
- PMCID: PMC2598165
- DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.017483
Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China
Abstract
There is a prevailing conviction that if traditional medicine (TRM) or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are integrated into healthcare systems, modern scientific medicine (MSM) should retain its principal status. This paper contends that this position is misguided in medical contexts where TRM is established and remains vibrant. By reflecting on the Chinese policy on three entrenched forms of TRM (Tibetan, Mongolian and Uighur medicines) in western regions of China, the paper challenges the ideology of science that lies behind the demand that all traditional forms of medicine be evaluated and reformed according to MSM standards. Tibetan medicine is used as a case study to indicate the falsity of a major premise of the scientific ideology. The conclusion is that the proper integrative system for TRM and MSM is a dual standard based system in which both TRM and MSM are free to operate according to their own medical standards.
References
-
- Fan R. Modern western science as a standard for traditional chinese medicine: a critical appraisal. J Law Med Ethics 200331213–221. - PubMed
-
- Holliday I. Traditional medicines in modern societies: an exploration of integrationist options through East Asian experience. J Med Philos 200328373–389. - PubMed
-
- World Health Organization WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–2005. Geneva: WHO, 2002
-
- National Bureau of Statistics, People's Republic of China Communique on major figures of the 2000 population census. 2001. http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/e5cendata2.htm (accessed 19 February 2006)
-
- Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. (In Chinese) http://www.china.org.cn/chinese/zhuanti/166208.htm (accessed 19 February 2006)
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical