首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Medical Ethics >Which medicine? Whose standard? Critical reflections on medical integration in China
【2h】

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

机译:哪种药谁的标准?对中国医疗一体化的批判性思考

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:人们普遍认为,如果将传统医学(TRM)或补充和替代医学(CAM)集成到医疗保健系统中,则现代科学医学(MSM)应该保留其主要地位。本文认为,在建立TRM并保持生机勃勃的医学环境中,这种立场被误导了。通过反思中国对中国西部地区根深蒂固的三种形式的TRM(藏族,蒙古族和维吾尔族药品)的政策,本文对科学思想提出了挑战,后者要求对所有传统形式的医学进行评估和改革。 MSM标准。以藏医学为例,说明科学意识形态主要前提的虚假性。结论是,TRM和MSM的正确集成系统是基于双重标准的系统,其中TRM和MSM都可以根据自己的医疗标准自由操作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号