Birch Stephen
School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.
Private Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Integr Med Res. 2021 Jun;10(2):100695. doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100695. Epub 2020 Nov 18.
Traditional East Asian Medical (TEAM) practice systems exhibit much variation. Little work has been done to study reasons for this variation. This essay explores cultural and historical explanations for how variety occurs by contrasting the use of two TEAM concepts in diagnosis in Chinese and Japanese systems.
Focussing on two important concepts, (heart) and (spirit), a literature review is performed to contrast how they developed, are understood and used in diagnosis in Chinese Traditional Chinese medicine, TCM, and Japanese Meridian Therapy, MT.
While TCM texts describe many heart-related diagnoses, MT texts do not describe any. While TCM associates '' with the mind and emotions coupled with associated diagnoses, MT does neither. Historical and cultural reasons for these differences are identified.
In light of these findings, important questions arise about the nature of concepts and diagnoses in TEAM practice systems. They are not objective like biomedical constructs and diagnoses, nor are they clearly articulated and studied yet according to international standards. This suggests a range of research strategies that are needed. There are valid historical and cultural reasons for the differences we see between Japanese and Chinese TEAM systems. In light of these, further research is needed to elaborate and identify critical issues that are important for education, practice and research.
传统东亚医学(TEAM)实践体系存在很大差异。对于这种差异产生的原因,目前研究较少。本文通过对比中医和日本医学体系中两个TEAM概念在诊断中的应用,探讨差异产生的文化和历史原因。
聚焦于两个重要概念“心”和“神”,通过文献回顾对比它们在中医(TCM)和日本经络疗法(MT)的诊断中是如何发展、理解和应用的。
中医文献描述了许多与心相关的诊断,而日本经络疗法文献未提及任何相关诊断。中医将“神”与思维、情感及相关诊断联系起来,而日本经络疗法则不然。文中指出了这些差异的历史和文化原因。
鉴于这些发现,关于TEAM实践体系中概念和诊断的本质产生了重要问题。它们不像生物医学结构和诊断那样客观,也尚未按照国际标准进行清晰阐述和研究。这表明需要一系列研究策略。日本和中国TEAM体系之间的差异存在合理的历史和文化原因。鉴于此,需要进一步研究以详细阐述并确定对教育、实践和研究至关重要的关键问题。