ACMA Home
About ACMA
About Us
ACMA Publications
Archives
 
ACMA Cancer Center
 
To Cancer Patients
Cancer Breakthrough
ACMA Prostate 
Cancer Treatment
ACMA Leukemia
  Treatment
 
Cardiovascular System Diseases
Digestive System Diseases
Endocrine System Diseases
Geriatrics Diseases
Hematopoietic System Diseases
Immune System Diseases
Infectious Diseases
Reproductive System Diseases
Mental Diseases
Metabolic Diseases
Nervous System Diseases
Obstetrics and Gynecology System Diseases
Ophthalmology Diseases
Osteoarthropathy Diseases
Pediatric Diseases
Respiratory System Diseases
Urinary System Diseases
Contact Us
Letters from Patients
Frequently Asked Questions
Fees
ACMA Patient Group
ACMA Patient Association
Special Links
                         
                                                   
             
 
 
                         
 
 
 

ACMA Publication Issue Oct 1, 2005

 

ACMA Comments on ACAOM Doctoral Task Force Report

 

American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA)

 

 

To: Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM)
From: American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA)
Re: ACAOM Doctoral Task Force Report
Date: October 25, 2005
 
Dear ACAOM:
 
The American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA) has studied the ACAOM Doctoral Task Force Report dated June 11, 2005, and supports ACAOM’s endeavors to introduce the first doctoral program for Chinese Medicine (CM) in the United States.  ACMA deems that this effort together with other CM professional endeavors will help the growth and development of Chinese Medicine in America. 
 
ACMA agrees with most issues covered in the Doctoral Task Force Report.  There are, however, two issues that probably need to be further considered. 
 
                                        (1)   Oriental Medicine vs. Chinese Medicine
 
Most doctors of Chinese Medicine (CMD), doctors of Oriental Medicine (OMD), acupuncturists, and other practitioners and professionals in the field of Chinese Medicine understand that the term Oriental Medicine (OM) is a synonym of Chinese Medicine.  There is no separate, independent medicine called “Oriental Medicine”, which is significantly different from Chinese Medicine.  Using the term Oriental Medicine for Chinese Medicine has actually done harms to our profession in many ways, and has jeopardized the healthy growth and development of the profession of Chinese Medicine in the United States of America.  Related issues are elucidated in more details in [1, 2].  
 
There is a Chinese saying “Dispatch troops with just cause (师出有名)”, which reflects the importance of an appropriate name for an endeavor.  More than 2000 years ago, Confucius pointed out the consequences when the name is inappropriate: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.  If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success (名不正,则言不顺;言不顺,则行不成)”.
 
Above sayings emphasize that an appropriate name is of crucial importance to the success of a profession.  The profession of Chinese Medicine is no exception. 
 
In fact, the inappropriate term Oriental Medicine has seriously hurt, blocked, and jeopardized the healthy growth of Chinese Medicine in America for several decades.  Without the distraction of the term of Oriental Medicine, most people (including most Western Medicine professionals) would understand Chinese Medicine much better, and the profession of Chinese Medicine would be accepted in America much faster [1]. 
 
Because Oriental Medicine is an inappropriate synonym for Chinese Medicine, this mistake should be corrected the sooner the better.  To correct this inappropriate term and to restore the original name of Chinese Medicine is of utmost importance to the long-term healthy growth of Chinese Medicine in the United States of America. 
 
ACMA deems that it is an opportunity for the ACAOM doctoral program to correct this mistake, to introduce and restore the name of Chinese Medicine (CM) in the doctoral program’s title. 
 
            (2)   “Rather, they are the first and only degree required for practice of a profession”
 
In paragraph (b) in the section of “Definition of the First Professional Doctorate” of the Doctoral Task Force Report, there is a statement as follows:
 
“… Rather, they are the first and only degree required for practice of a profession.”  
 
The terms “first” and “only” here probably are inappropriate because they can cause confusion to the readers. 
 
Long before the establishment of the proposed doctoral degrees in America, the Doctor of Chinese Medicine (CMD) degree and education have already been established and practiced for many years in China [3]. 
 
Similar to more than 100 countries around the world, most Chinese Medicine practitioners in the United States are trained by CMD in China directly or by students or graduates of CMD medical schools from China indirectly.  The currently proposed doctoral degree in the profession of Chinese Medicine in U.S. is borrowed from and based on the CMD education system in China.  From textbooks to syllabus, from basic Chinese Medicine medical courses and to clinical practices and trainings, most of them are copied from CMD education system in China. 
 
Obviously, the CMD degree in China is the “first” doctoral degree in the profession of Chinese Medicine around the globe.  CMD degree in China has set up the norm for most countries on Chinese Medicine education in the world.  Due to this reason, the term “first” used in above paragraph in the Doctoral Task Force Report is inappropriate. 
 
Because the CMD is the first professional doctoral degree required for practice of Chinese Medicine in the world, the doctoral degree proposed in the Doctoral Task Force Report will not be the “only” degree required for the practice of Chinese Medicine in America.  CMD obtained from China not only meet the current requirements for practice of Chinese Medicine in China and around the globe, but also meet the current requirements for practice of Chinese Medicine in the United States.  Therefore, the term “only” used in above paragraph in the Doctoral Task Force Report is inappropriate. 
 
Above are two comments from American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA) on the ACAOM Doctoral Task Force Report dated June 11, 2005.  Any feedbacks on above comments are welcome.
 
Thank you.
 
 
 
References
  1. Xu, B. On Chinese Medicine vs. Oriental/Asian/Eastern Medicine. ACMA Publication Issue May 2003. http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org
  2. Xu, B. Unified Medicine Project – Part I. Review of Medicines. Acupuncture Today, December 2005 Issue.
  3. Xu, B. About Doctor of Chinese Medicine (CMD) Education. ACMA Publication Issue Aug 1, 2004. http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org

 

Back to top

 
 
ACMA Home   |   ACMA Publications    |   About ACMA   |   About Us    |   Archives   |    Special Links   |   Contact Us
ACMA Patient Association   |    ACMA Patient Group       
 
Copyright © 2008 American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA).  All rights reserved.