As many authors and teachers would have us believe, the ancient Chinese in all their wisdom left us with a complete system of medicine that is able to account for the root, and therefore, underlying cause of any disease. Be it excess fire in the liver, or kidney deficiency, contemporary zang-fu theory is able, in theory at least, to explain any disease pattern based on the patient’s symptoms and tongue and pulse presentations.
A beautiful system it is, and after all this time of rigorous study, clinical experience, and multiple visits to China, I am still hypnotized by the simplicity and totality of this wonderful medicine.
However, the question keeps ringing in my head, ‘Is acupuncture a dead science?’
Let me elaborate a little more. As I’ve been taught, the Chinese were so brilliant in their understanding of the subtle movement of life energy, and the human bodies connection to nature, that me a mere mortal Western man had better be careful about how I handle this precious medicine.
Is it fair for me, a mortal, to question everything that I have ever been taught about Chinese medicine? Should I really believe that 4 gates and a few other choice points are really adequate to address the numerous conditions that can result from liver qi stagnation? What if I am certain of my diagnosis and point selections but the patient fails to get results? A caring therapist should certainly question why the “empirical” results were not satisfied.
Once a zang-fu or 5-element pattern has been identified, there are only a limited number of points that can be used to treat that pattern. What if those points don’t work?
After all of my clinical experience, I still wonder what to do if my point prescription doesn’t work, even though I am certain I have made the right diagnosis. I can consult innumerable books for any given condition or pattern, and I will generally find the same prescriptions. If I fail to include a point like KI 4 or SP 7 will that throw off the whole treatment?
I now have to ask myself and my readers, as medical therapists, how can we choose new point prescriptions if the traditional ones simply don’t work? How can we build upon the foundation of Chinese medicine, and bring our modern knowledge, scientific methods, and Western intelligence to the sacred alter of this medicine?
As experts in our field, we need to regularly ask ourselves, what the percentages really are for people that have been successfully treated for any given condition? How do the results for treating headaches with acupuncture compare to treating diarrhea or sweating. Is acupuncture even the most appropriate treatment for things like diarrhea, excessive sweating, infections, and asthma?
Shouldn’t a living science have scientists that track, in an unbiased way, the results of our experiments and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the points really work or not. Isn’t it each of our responsibilities to track the results for ourselves so that we know what types of conditions really respond to our healing sessions? Who is doing this?
Although there are some brilliant teachers and doctors that are researching these matters, and forming new and unique innovations and perspectives in the use of acupuncture, I have found that there are many of us who blindly accept what we have been taught. What’s worse is too many acupuncturists hold to their traditional theories as if they were gospel truth, and are often unable to see beyond their own limited perspectives. It also seems that many of them are afraid to question the wisdom of the ancients, remember we are just mortals, but the ancient Chinese must have been enlightened masters to discover the things they did. How scientific is this?
Old beliefs die-hard. Even when they are held by the holistic community.
A hug, until the next
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário