Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China.
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.
Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. safan@cityu.edu.hk
Ruiping
R
Fan
Ian
I
Holliday
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel / Q000208:ethnology; D001294:Attitude to Health / Q000208:ethnology; D002681:China; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D006291:Health Policy / Q000639:trends*; D006801:Humans; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D008518:Medicine, East Asian Traditional; D012423:Rural Health