IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i10p1997-2012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Traditional healing systems and the ethos of science

Author

Listed:
  • Quah, Stella R.

Abstract

This paper addresses the challenge posed to traditional Chinese medicine by the ethos of science and explores three related assumptions. First, the ethos of traditional Chinese medicine is incompatible with the ethos of science. Second, the challenge of science to traditional Chinese medicine is represented by the requirement to comply with internationally recognized standards of medical research and practice applied to biomedicine, adopted and implemented by the State. The State requires that the safety and effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine procedures and medications be ascertained following the methodology chartered by the ethos of science. Third, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners present a third ethos, the "ethos of pragmatic healing" based on the pragmatic acculturation of clinical practice, as an alternative to the ethos of science. This third ethos is an inadequate response to the challenge because it increases the divergence between health care policy requirements of scientific scrutiny and the fostering of traditional Chinese medicine as an icon of Chinese culture. The study is based on data from personal interviews with representative samples of three ethnic populations in Singapore; secondary data from other studies; relevant official data; and documents from biomedical and traditional Chinese medicine organizations. The methods include inductive analysis, multiple correlation and regression, and factor analysis among others. The analysis indicates that the pressure to comply with official health regulations and the inability to succeed under the ethos of science lead traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to respond with an ethos of pragmatic healing that eschews conceptual analysis, ignores the paradigmatic divide with biomedicine, and focuses on "using what works". This third ethos can only be a temporary response to the pressure to upgrade the practice of traditional Chinese medicine and it does not correspond to pragmatic acculturation commonly found in the population. The ethos of pragmatic healing leaves the challenge of science unresolved and it is likely to increase the level of conflict between the realm of biomedicine (including health care policy requirements of scientific scrutiny) and the ethos of traditional Chinese medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Quah, Stella R., 2003. "Traditional healing systems and the ethos of science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1997-2012, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:10:p:1997-2012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00078-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chiu, Stephen W.K. & Ko, Lisanne S.F. & Lee, Rance P.L., 2005. "Decolonization and the movement for institutionalization of Chinese medicine in Hong Kong: a political process perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1045-1058, September.
    2. Waldram, James B. & Hatala, Andrew R., 2015. "Latent and manifest empiricism in Q'eqchi' Maya healing: A case study of HIV/AIDS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 9-16.
    3. Wahlberg, Ayo, 2007. "A quackery with a difference--New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2307-2316, December.
    4. Barry, Christine Ann, 2006. "The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2646-2657, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:10:p:1997-2012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.