There is a lot of rhetoric about acupuncture training that is misleading.
Lets look at TCM's 3 years of training in comparison with Western training.
Anatomy & Physiology | Minimum National Occupational Standards | 1 year |
It is presumed that TCM's different type of Anatomy & Physiology is for the same minimum standard period of training of 1 year.
Educationally the Breakdown of Course Hours and Learning for Acupuncture
Western Anatomy Physiology – As a Prerequisite for Acupuncture Courses
Course Pre-requisite Western A&P Chinese A&P Hours
European Based Systems
| Prior learning / qualification in Anatomy / Physiology as a prerequisite | Yes
| No | Minimum NOS standards 1 year and above |
Western Medical Systems | Prior learning / qualification in Anatomy / Physiology as a prerequisite | Yes
| No | Minimum NOS standards 1 year and above |
TCM Based Systems | Prior learning / qualification in Anatomy / Physiology as a prerequisite | No | Yes | It is taken that this would be a minimum of 1 year? |
The Chinese / TCM courses do not utilise Western Anatomy / Physiology.
They utilise Chinese Anatomy / Physiology which is part of their learning and understanding of the Chinese / TCM systems of acupuncture.
The Chinese / TCM course parts of ‘Western’ Anatomy & Physiology seems to consist of knowing the anatomical positions of insertions and origins of muscles.
Which objectively is about level 1 in English NVQ’s Anatomy & Physiology.
Source of information / statement with reference to Anatomy and Physiology education BAc.
Each of the groups will have Doctors, Nurses, Physiotherapists, Osteopaths and Chiropractors etc.
However, there is an anomaly in the education that is being overlooked in that the above categories of practitioners would have to possibly learn Chinese Anatomy / Physiology etc, within their TCM course?
Unlike the Acupuncture courses that use accepted and recognised tutored Western Anatomy / Physiology as their foundation for their Acupuncture courses.
This is what Chinese / TCM acupuncture is trying to implement with ALL acupuncture, in making themselves out to be ‘elite’ by stating that everyone should be proficient in Chinese / TCM Anatomy & Physiology based systems criteria etc, why?
The question then arises that if other “Western / European" based acupuncture systems do not utilise Chinese / TCM philosophical and esoteric concepts why should they have to learn them in the first instance anyway, even if you exclude their type Anatomy & Physiology.
But, its OK for the majority of their Chinese / TCM practitioners to be deficient in Western Anatomy & Physiology with its Aetiology / Pathology as a recognised educational qualification and knowledge base?
Supported by a none replicable ‘diagnostic’ system that they are unwilling to partake in double blind evaluation diagnostic trials with, but claim to be superior to European systems of acupuncture who are willing to undertake double blind diagnostic evaluations in proving their efficacy and their reliability of diagnosis which should surely be the first and foremost criteria in the interests of public safety or any health care system.
The application and utilisation of “formulae acupuncture” with a medically diagnosed condition as in Western Medical acupuncture systems have proven outcomes and replication.
Accompanied with Western Anatomy & Physiology diagnosis or diagnostic indicators.
Anatomy Physiology – within Course Structure
Course Learning Necessary Not Necessary Hours
European Based Systems
| Tutored Anatomy / Physiology is a prerequisite qualification prior to starting a course, so it is external of course structure. | No
| ||
Western Medical Systems | Tutored Anatomy / Physiology is a prerequisite qualification prior to starting a course, so it is external of course structure.
| No
| ||
TCM Based Systems | Part of Course Chinese Anatomy / Physiology with its Esoteric and Philosophical concepts in being none Western. | Yes | ? |
The use of the Chinese Language
Course Chinese Language required Necessary Not Necessary Hours
European Based Systems
| No
| |||
Western Medical Systems | No
| |||
TCM Based Systems | Part of Course Learning Chinese Language for the understanding of their acupuncture point names of their systems with Eastern Anatomy & Physiology with Esoteric and Philosophical basis | Yes
| ? 1 Year minimum would seem to be fair. |
The same again applies in that Western / European courses do not need to learn the Chinese language / terminology or "meanings of points" with their esoteric and philosophical concepts needed for a Chinese / TCM Acupuncture course.
The hours needed for the Chinese / TCM courses are not necessary for Western / European based courses.
Within the Draft National Standards for Acupuncture it states that each of the groups should have knowledge of each others Anatomy / Physiology and language with concepts?
Objectively this subjective statement is not true in that the majority numbers of practitioners within the BAc. group, as is well known do not utilise Western Medical terminology or understand Western Anatomy & Physiology terminology.
Source of statement BAc. author and co-author of well known acupuncture book.
The use of Philosophical / Esoteric Concepts
Course Philosophical / Esoteric Necessary Not Necessary Hours
Concepts
European Based Systems
| No
| |||
Western Medical Systems | No
| |||
TCM Based Systems | Part of Course - Chinese Philosophical with their Esoteric meanings / rational as to their use of points selection | Yes
| ? |
So far as can be seen this does not mean that the learning of acupuncture has been accomplished.
Except for the learning of the Chinese Anatomy / Physiology, language and terminology with it’s philosophical, esoteric concepts which are necessary to learn the Chinese / TCM Acupuncture systems of diagnosis and treatment.
The case used to be that TCM students were NOT allowed to practice any acupuncture needling until their third year of training.
Keeping in line with NOS Tutored Western Anatomy / Physiology, the Chinese Anatomy / Physiology educationally has no accepted equivalent standard as far as is known, apart from rhetoric of “its of a similar or equivalent standard”, when asked by whom the Chinese / TCM Anatomy & Physiology was recognised educationally BAc. did not or could not answer?
NOS standards are a minimum of 1 year with 180 hours tutored Anatomy & Physiology.
The learning of a language, terminology, philosophy and esoteric concepts in demonstrating their understanding would probably be at least 1 more years learning?
Chinese / TCM learn the origins and insertions of muscles etc., which seems to be their nearest ‘flagship’ claim to Western Anatomy & Physiology underpinning knowledge.
Total – 2 years.
Which would explain ‘why’ Chinese / TCM Acupuncture courses need to be 3 years in their completion of the TCM course.
2 years of which as a minimum should be accredited to learning and understanding the basics that are already required as an NOS prerequisite for entry to learning Acupuncture systems by Western and European based system standards, no matter how many hours are accredited to their basic learning and understanding.
 |  | ||
 |
|
 | |
 |  |
Aetiology of Disease / Pathology is medically the same all over the World.
But yet Chinese / TCM acupunctures Disease / Pathology Aetiology is different, so the question that needs to be asked is “how are they going to refer to a medical practitioner?”
Referral to a Medical practitioner is recognised as being a ‘problem’ in understanding what Chinese / TCM are trying to communicate about a patient from a Western Medical science basis to a Medical practitioner?
The use of formulae acupuncture and its outcomes with medically diagnosed conditions is well supported and documented by science so there are no questions as to its replication or capabilities in treatment outcomes.
However, in not utilising a Western medical diagnosis the abilities of Chinese / TCM systems diagnostic capabilities are not recognised by science as to being replicable diagnostic systems even by experienced practitioners.
The Chinese / TCM systems of diagnosis also has ‘problems’ in recording data and documenting their diagnosis for further science based research or comparison correlations with other forms of acupuncture.
There is then the problem of terms such as ‘energy’ which after thousands of years still retains a mystery from modern science and research?
However the science and research support that it is detectable as being ‘electrical’, such as most Hospital equipment which is based upon in testing and monitoring patients e.g. ECG, EEG etc.
But it is refused acknowledgement by Chinese / TCM acupuncture as being detectable for replicable diagnosis as with European systems of acupuncture, even though acupuncture points are accepted as being measureable and of a electrically low skin resistance?
But yet TCM utilise beepers to find the points in their anatomical areas on the body?
By definition Eastern acupunctures ‘old’ conception sees the body’s acupuncture system as a ‘closed system’, hence the closing of an acupuncture point when an acupuncture needle is extracted at the close of treatment and the placing of a finger over the area where the needle had been to “close the acupuncture point” and theoretically stop the acupuncture systems access to external influences.
| | ||
|
|
| |
| |
Objectively this makes a nonsense of the statement by Chinese / TCM acupuncture that only treatment application via needles are acceptable, against proven science based research of modern advances in acupuncture and medical treatment applications alike.
This is complicated even further by not being able to refer patients to a medical practitioner with a Western medical terminology diagnosis, but is supported by rhetoric with misleading Chinese / TCM acupuncture statements of being able to “diagnose and treat disease / pathology” that has a different Aetiology?
One general term quoted being “blocked”, which is a blocked what?
The proven science based European measurement systems use the term "electrical resistance".
Some Japanese systems of Eastern acupuncture incorporate Western Anatomy & Physiology recognised qualifications in their course which is 7 years training.
Not the 3 years training in Chinese / TCM acupuncture in England.
Skills for Health - Summarisation
It should be realised that Skills for Health has assessed educational teaching standards for acupuncture courses, not their “educational content” for the subject area.
| | ||
|
|
| |
| |
If supposedly it has, one of the questions that should have been ‘flagged’ is the proof of “Chinese / TCM being the same or of a similar standard educationally in Anatomy & Physiology qualifications”? Which is where in the English educational systems references?
This proof so far in spite of the rhetoric has not been forthcoming or proven educationally, is not even accepted or recognised in China as being of a similar standard to conventional Medical Anatomy & Physiology or its aetiology of disease and pathology.
It has been taken for granted with no supporting science based evidence or research, as admitted by Skills for Health that it does not have the expertise or knowledge base to do this type of assessment.
Again the rhetoric by Chinese / TCM does not bear out what actually ‘has been assessed’.
