Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China

    Research output: Journal Publications and ReviewsRGC 21 - Publication in refereed journalpeer-review

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)454-461
    JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
    Volume33
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2007

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this