S AT U R D AY, F E B R U A RY 1 9 , 2 0 1 1

The TCM vs. Western medicine debate -- a

philosophical and political debate?
Recently, Andy Ho, a senior writer with the Straits Times (ST), wrote a
series of opinion pieces questioning the validity of alternative medicine as
a form of medical treatment. Unsurprisingly, this series of opinion pieces
stirred up a debate in the ST Forum pages over the validity of alternative
medicine as a form of medical treatment, especially with Ho's most recent
piece that labelled acupuncture (and by extension, traditional Chinese
medicine in general?) as a "placebo treatment".
While this debate over the validity of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)
as a form of medical treatment is interesting in itself, what I find more
interesting are the possibly underlying issues, philosophical and political,
that are involved in this debate. These are the issues that this post will
focus attention on. As such, this post will not be taking a stance as to
whether TCM, or alternative medicine in general, is a valid and reliable
form of medical treatment.
Philosophical/epistemological issue: what should qualify as
valid knowledge?
As some of you all may already know, there is a sub-field within the study
of philosophy that looks at what should qualify as valid or certain
knowledge.
And one main divide in this sub-field would perhaps be the divide
WH O A M I ?
LCC
"Do not ask me who I am
and do not ask me to
remain the same" --
Michel Foucault
VI EW MY COMPLETE PROFI LE
D I S C L A I ME R
The opinions expressed in this blog
are that of the author solely. They are
not and should not be taken as being
indicative or representative of the
views of any organisation the author
may be a member of or am working
for.
A R C H I V E S
Archives
E MA I L
searchingforenlightenment@hotm
ail.com
0

More

Next Blog Create Blog

Sign In
RANDOM T HOUGHT S OF A F REE
T HI NKER
" T H R E E PA S S I ON S , S I MP L E B U T OV E RWH E L MI N GLY S T R ON G, H AV E GOV E R N E D MY L I F E : T H E
L ON GI N G F OR L OV E , T H E S E A R C H F OR K N OWL E D GE , A N D U N B E A R A B L E P I T Y F OR T H E S U F F E R I N G
OF MA N K I N D . " - - B E RT R A N D R U S S E L L
between empiricism and rationalism. Proponents of the former generally
argue that only what can be observed by the senses should qualify as valid
knowledge while proponents of the latter are more sceptical about
sensory data since such data can be "false" (for example, optical illusions)
and instead argue that valid knowledge should be knowledge that is
congruent with reason.
Another significant divide in this sub-field would be the divide between
positivism/scientism and non-positivism/scientism. Essentially,
proponents of the former argue that only knowledge that is congruent
with scientific reasoning or that can be scientifically proven should
qualify as valid knowledge. In contrast, the proponents of non-
positivism/scientism is of the stance that although scientific knowledge
may indeed be a form of valid knowledge, it is not the only form of valid
knowledge; knowledge derived from other sources or methods may be
just as valid.
Evidently, the latter divide is relevant with regards to this debate over the
validity of TCM, or alternative medicine in general, as a form of medical
treatment vis-a-vis Western medicine, in that the general impression
perhaps that while Western medicine is scientifically proven, the former
is however not as scientifically proven. And thus, to those who abide by
the stance of positivism/scientism, this will imply that TCM, or
alternative medicine in general, is not as valid or reliable a form of
medical treatment as Western medicine. On the other hand, as can be
seen from the letters written in to the ST Forum to defend TCM, there are
those who will argue that although TCM may not be as scientifically
proven, this does not however imply that it is not a valid or reliable form
of medical treatment.
Of course, while there are similarities between the positions adopted in
the "positivism/scientism versus non-positivism/scientism" and
"Western medicine versus alternative medicine" debates, I suppose that
one main difference is however that the latter is not just a theoretical
debate but involves people's health and lives.
Political/cultural issue: rise of the non-West?
As was mentioned earlier, the general impression is perhaps that while
Western medicine, which generally has its roots in Western societies, is
scientifically proven, TCM, or alternative medicine, is however not as
scientifically proven. The former is thus regarded as the dominant
mainstream model of medical treatment while non-Western medical
knowledge or treatment is regarded as "alternative medicine".
Posts
Comments
The process by which the above impression was created was, according to
the postcolonial theorists, a highly political one. Essentially, it may be
argued that along with their political colonisation of non-European
territories in the past, the European/Western colonialists also colonised
the minds of those living in those territories. This means that along with
colonisation, traditional forms of knowledge, including medical
knowledge, and cultures in the colonised terrorities were relegated to a
non-dominant, if not inferior, position vis-a-vis Western knowledge and
culture. And as postcolonial theorists may argue, the legacy and
aftermath of this process is still felt today and efforts should be made to
reverse it.
In light of the above, the increased push to have non-Western forms of
medical treatment be recognised as an equally valid model of medical
treatment besides that of Western medicine may be seen as part of the
effort to reverse the dominance of Western knowledge and culture set in
place during the colonial period. Of course, this push to reverse Western
dominance is especially relevant in recent times, in light of the economic
and political rise of non-Western powers such as China and India
(interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge, when talking about
"alternative medicine", people are usually referring to traditional Indian
or Chinese medical treatments and not really traditional African medical
treatment).
Here, it is worthwhile to pause and think for a while: if it is recognised
that Western and non-Western medicine are different but equally valid
models of medical treatment, would they be complimentary or competing
models? Or would they be just different models?
Moving on, so far it would seem that , for at least the foreseeable future,
Western medicine will retain its dominant "mainstream" position but
who knows what the future may hold?
Conclusion
That is all I have to say for now. Hopefully, what I have written above has
shed new or a different light on the issue in question and provoked some
thought in you all.
POSTED BY LCC AT 16:16
4 COMMENTS:
chillycraps said...
I think there is a deep-seated preference in favour of western
medicine, that is very institutionalised. Just the fact that TCM
practitioners can't issue medical certificate already tells a lot.
21/02/2011 10:03
angry doc said...
Chiropractic and homeopathy have "Western" roots, yet they see
supporters in our local population.
I suspect that the "cultural" divide that sees people supporting
alternative medicine is not just an issue of race or east-vs-west,
but also one of distrust of "establishment".
21/02/2011 11:58
angry doc said...
Ha, I think chillcraps' post just proved my point!
Certainly the alternative medicine establishment (no, that's not
an oxymoron) is trying to market itself under the banner of
"health freedom" - sod the science, let the consumers decide!
21/02/2011 20:34
lacit said...
What about the main difference between "Western" and
traditional Chinese medicine: the rigorous tests and trials that are
required for a (western) drug to pass before it is allowed to even
be licensed for use?
I wouldn't dismiss the efficacy of certain types of traditional
medicine, but given a choice, I would almost always choose the
"Western" option simply because I have greater confidence in
what the drug actually contains (i.e. an isolated compound as
opposed to a mixture of unknowns in a herbal root), how it was
manufactured (as opposed to questionable preservation methods
employed in traditional medicine), its consistent quality and
dosage, its safety, efficacy and contraindications.
TCM may have its merits but there is no reason why it should be
exempt from scientific scrutiny.
22/02/2011 01:17
Newer Post Older Post
POST A COMMENT
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Google Account
Publish Publish

Preview Preview
LI NKS TO THI S POST
Create a Link
Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)