Religion, Esoterica and Values - Back (almost) to the original issue -

[Guest guest]

Kim: how does judging the values, judgment and morals of practitioners

utilizing a classic

acupuncture modality in any way further anything or help our profession evolve?

 

Daniel: Our profession is at a very critical series of junctures in its

development.

Credentialisation is changing dramatically. Doctorates have arrived. Some are

calling for far

more biomedical education. More and more docs are doing acupuncture and it

won't be long

before 'medical acupuncture' is knocking on our door (not to mention

'chiropuncture',

'physiopuncture' etc. Some of us are getting very seriously into

specialisation. China is

opening up and introducing a very powerful nationalistically based

entrepeneurial impulse

into the medicine. Insurance, both public and private is engaging with us in

many and varied

ways with many unclear, unstated and varied agendas and motivations. Drug

companies are

exerting more and more influence at all levels. Public interest in what we do

is exploding.

Community acupuncture is a new business model with many implications. On and on

it goes.

It is a time of tremendous flux. I cannot think of anything MORE important than

a really

serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we are, what

we are,

why we are and where we want to go. That dialogue won't go anywhere useful if

we don't

discuss values. And if we don't do this, many of us will just wake up one

morning, perhaps

10 or 15 years from now and wonder what happened.

[Guest guest]

Daniel, I agree with most of what you say: " I cannot think of anything MORE

important than a really

serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we are,

what we are,

why we are and where we want to go. " Absolutely.

But this initial thread began as a response to practitioners misrepresenting

the effectiveness of one style of acupuncture and characterizing all who use

it as being 'only in it for the money'. These assertions attacking the

personal values of other practitioners are IMO completely unwarranted and

counterproductive to what you are advocating. Bringing PERSONAL values into

this sort of dialogue is divisive and, as you say, " Our profession is at a

very critical series of junctures in its development. " Let's keep the

dialogue professional and leave personal values out of it.

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Daniel Schulman

<daniel.schulmanwrote:

 

> Kim: how does judging the values, judgment and morals of practitioners

> utilizing a classic

> acupuncture modality in any way further anything or help our profession

> evolve?

>

> Daniel: Our profession is at a very critical series of junctures in its

> development.

> Credentialisation is changing dramatically. Doctorates have arrived. Some

> are calling for far

> more biomedical education. More and more docs are doing acupuncture and it

> won't be long

> before 'medical acupuncture' is knocking on our door (not to mention

> 'chiropuncture',

> 'physiopuncture' etc. Some of us are getting very seriously into

> specialisation. China is

> opening up and introducing a very powerful nationalistically based

> entrepeneurial impulse

> into the medicine. Insurance, both public and private is engaging with us

> in many and varied

> ways with many unclear, unstated and varied agendas and motivations. Drug

> companies are

> exerting more and more influence at all levels. Public interest in what we

> do is exploding.

> Community acupuncture is a new business model with many implications. On

> and on it goes.

> It is a time of tremendous flux. I cannot think of anything MORE important

> than a really

> serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we are,

> what we are,

> why we are and where we want to go. That dialogue won't go anywhere useful

> if we don't

> discuss values. And if we don't do this, many of us will just wake up one

> morning, perhaps

> 10 or 15 years from now and wonder what happened.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim,

I would like to respond. But its my hope we can keep this dialogue on the high

road.

Some tempers are flaring, some are even using foul language now, malicious and

personal

innuendos are being cast - and all of that is unnecessary and uncalled for. I

do want to

stress though, that that does NOT mean a valuable discussion is not going to get

provocative. Provocative dialogue is important and valuable and as long as we

maintain

respect and decorum, dialogue that employs provocative conjecture, even witty

sarcasm,

to my way of thinking, is ok.

My understanding is that this whole thread did not quite start the way you are

suggesting.

My understanding is that this thread started with Lonny J. simply replying to

someone

saying they got 'Better results' with T/C/T approaches than with by

saying, 'that

depends what you mean by better results'.

And I have to agree, it does!

I also heard Lonny go to great pains to make it clear he knows practitioners in

ALL styles

or traditions (TCT, TCM, 5E, Japanese, etc) who practice with very little depth

and lot of

pretense and others who practice with great depth and little pretense - in other

words, the

T/C/T practitioners were not even being singled out.

Clearly this discussion has hit a raw nerve.

Thats ok by me.

It must be raw for a reason.

But I just do not agree with you - that what you are calling 'personal values'

have to be

externalised from the discussion.

They are, to my way of seeing things, central, absolutely central, front row and

center to

how we deal with ALL of the challenges facing our profession (business models,

insurance

coverage, evidence based research, specialisation, our relationship with modern

medicine,

our relationship with Oprah Winfrey, you name it).

Just making pain go away quickly does, in fact, reflect a certain set of

personal values on

the part of the practitioner.

Working with the patient to examine the origins of the pain, their history,

their present,

their future, and how the pain may be resolved but the many and varied

underlying or root

dynamics they are wrapped up in may also be examined and addressed reflects

another

set of personal values.

These personal values WILL dictate very much so what kind of practice you have,

how you

work with your patients, what kind of patients you will attract, what your views

on

research are (I had a strong interest in research for quite a while, wrote a

number of

published papers on it - I cannot tell you how MANY research papers I have read

on

acupuncture that just horrified me because they started with the wrong questions

-

coming from the wrong value set and generated the wrong answers!!), what your

views on

insurance are, etc etc etc. There is simply no way to externalise personal

values from this

discussion. So, its critical we are up front, honest and clear about the values

we bring to

the table or, as I say, we will all just wake up some day - like that Talking

Heads song - we

will look around and say 'this is not my house, this is not my wife, what am I

doing here?'

But discussing values does not mean we have to get 'personal' in our dialogue

with

malicious comments, slam dunks, foul language or passive aggressive conversation

stoppers.

Respectfully

Daniel

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu wrote:

>

> Daniel, I agree with most of what you say: " I cannot think of anything MORE

> important than a really

> serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we are,

> what we are,

> why we are and where we want to go. " Absolutely.

> But this initial thread began as a response to practitioners misrepresenting

> the effectiveness of one style of acupuncture and characterizing all who use

> it as being 'only in it for the money'. These assertions attacking the

> personal values of other practitioners are IMO completely unwarranted and

> counterproductive to what you are advocating. Bringing PERSONAL values into

> this sort of dialogue is divisive and, as you say, " Our profession is at a

> very critical series of junctures in its development. " Let's keep the

> dialogue professional and leave personal values out of it.

>

> Kim Blankenship

>

>

>

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Daniel Schulman

> <daniel.schulmanwrote:

>

> > Kim: how does judging the values, judgment and morals of practitioners

> > utilizing a classic

> > acupuncture modality in any way further anything or help our profession

> > evolve?

> >

> > Daniel: Our profession is at a very critical series of junctures in its

> > development.

> > Credentialisation is changing dramatically. Doctorates have arrived. Some

> > are calling for far

> > more biomedical education. More and more docs are doing acupuncture and it

> > won't be long

> > before 'medical acupuncture' is knocking on our door (not to mention

> > 'chiropuncture',

> > 'physiopuncture' etc. Some of us are getting very seriously into

> > specialisation. China is

> > opening up and introducing a very powerful nationalistically based

> > entrepeneurial impulse

> > into the medicine. Insurance, both public and private is engaging with us

> > in many and varied

> > ways with many unclear, unstated and varied agendas and motivations. Drug

> > companies are

> > exerting more and more influence at all levels. Public interest in what we

> > do is exploding.

> > Community acupuncture is a new business model with many implications. On

> > and on it goes.

> > It is a time of tremendous flux. I cannot think of anything MORE important

> > than a really

> > serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we are,

> > what we are,

> > why we are and where we want to go. That dialogue won't go anywhere useful

> > if we don't

> > discuss values. And if we don't do this, many of us will just wake up one

> > morning, perhaps

> > 10 or 15 years from now and wonder what happened.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Daniel -

Actually this thread started a few days before Jarrett jumped in. And to

paraphrase your previous post, it all started with personal innuendoes being

cast - and all of that was unnecessary and uncalled for.

 

That's been my point from the start. I don't see any benefit, or a great

deal of difference, in casting personal innuendoes OR attacking peoples'

personal values in what should be a professional discourse.

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Daniel Schulman

<daniel.schulmanwrote:

 

> Hi Kim,

> I would like to respond. But its my hope we can keep this dialogue on the

> high road.

> Some tempers are flaring, some are even using foul language now, malicious

> and personal

> innuendos are being cast - and all of that is unnecessary and uncalled for.

> I do want to

> stress though, that that does NOT mean a valuable discussion is not going

> to get

> provocative. Provocative dialogue is important and valuable and as long as

> we maintain

> respect and decorum, dialogue that employs provocative conjecture, even

> witty sarcasm,

> to my way of thinking, is ok.

> My understanding is that this whole thread did not quite start the way you

> are suggesting.

> My understanding is that this thread started with Lonny J. simply replying

> to someone

> saying they got 'Better results' with T/C/T approaches than with by

> saying, 'that

> depends what you mean by better results'.

> And I have to agree, it does!

> I also heard Lonny go to great pains to make it clear he knows

> practitioners in ALL styles

> or traditions (TCT, TCM, 5E, Japanese, etc) who practice with very little

> depth and lot of

> pretense and others who practice with great depth and little pretense - in

> other words, the

> T/C/T practitioners were not even being singled out.

> Clearly this discussion has hit a raw nerve.

> Thats ok by me.

> It must be raw for a reason.

> But I just do not agree with you - that what you are calling 'personal

> values' have to be

> externalised from the discussion.

> They are, to my way of seeing things, central, absolutely central, front

> row and center to

> how we deal with ALL of the challenges facing our profession (business

> models, insurance

> coverage, evidence based research, specialisation, our relationship with

> modern medicine,

> our relationship with Oprah Winfrey, you name it).

> Just making pain go away quickly does, in fact, reflect a certain set of

> personal values on

> the part of the practitioner.

> Working with the patient to examine the origins of the pain, their history,

> their present,

> their future, and how the pain may be resolved but the many and varied

> underlying or root

> dynamics they are wrapped up in may also be examined and addressed reflects

> another

> set of personal values.

> These personal values WILL dictate very much so what kind of practice you

> have, how you

> work with your patients, what kind of patients you will attract, what your

> views on

> research are (I had a strong interest in research for quite a while, wrote

> a number of

> published papers on it - I cannot tell you how MANY research papers I have

> read on

> acupuncture that just horrified me because they started with the wrong

> questions -

> coming from the wrong value set and generated the wrong answers!!), what

> your views on

> insurance are, etc etc etc. There is simply no way to externalise personal

> values from this

> discussion. So, its critical we are up front, honest and clear about the

> values we bring to

> the table or, as I say, we will all just wake up some day - like that

> Talking Heads song - we

> will look around and say 'this is not my house, this is not my wife, what

> am I doing here?'

> But discussing values does not mean we have to get 'personal' in our

> dialogue with

> malicious comments, slam dunks, foul language or passive aggressive

> conversation

> stoppers.

> Respectfully

> Daniel

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> Kim Blankenship

> <kuangguiyu wrote:

> >

> > Daniel, I agree with most of what you say: " I cannot think of anything

> MORE

> > important than a really

> > serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we

> are,

> > what we are,

> > why we are and where we want to go. " Absolutely.

> > But this initial thread began as a response to practitioners

> misrepresenting

> > the effectiveness of one style of acupuncture and characterizing all who

> use

> > it as being 'only in it for the money'. These assertions attacking the

> > personal values of other practitioners are IMO completely unwarranted and

> > counterproductive to what you are advocating. Bringing PERSONAL values

> into

> > this sort of dialogue is divisive and, as you say, " Our profession is at

> a

> > very critical series of junctures in its development. " Let's keep the

> > dialogue professional and leave personal values out of it.

> >

> > Kim Blankenship

> >

> >

> >

> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Daniel Schulman

> > <daniel.schulmanwrote:

>

> >

> > > Kim: how does judging the values, judgment and morals of practitioners

> > > utilizing a classic

> > > acupuncture modality in any way further anything or help our profession

> > > evolve?

> > >

> > > Daniel: Our profession is at a very critical series of junctures in its

> > > development.

> > > Credentialisation is changing dramatically. Doctorates have arrived.

> Some

> > > are calling for far

> > > more biomedical education. More and more docs are doing acupuncture and

> it

> > > won't be long

> > > before 'medical acupuncture' is knocking on our door (not to mention

> > > 'chiropuncture',

> > > 'physiopuncture' etc. Some of us are getting very seriously into

> > > specialisation. China is

> > > opening up and introducing a very powerful nationalistically based

> > > entrepeneurial impulse

> > > into the medicine. Insurance, both public and private is engaging with

> us

> > > in many and varied

> > > ways with many unclear, unstated and varied agendas and motivations.

> Drug

> > > companies are

> > > exerting more and more influence at all levels. Public interest in what

> we

> > > do is exploding.

> > > Community acupuncture is a new business model with many implications.

> On

> > > and on it goes.

> > > It is a time of tremendous flux. I cannot think of anything MORE

> important

> > > than a really

> > > serious, thorough and comprehensive professional dialogue about who we

> are,

> > > what we are,

> > > why we are and where we want to go. That dialogue won't go anywhere

> useful

> > > if we don't

> > > discuss values. And if we don't do this, many of us will just wake up

> one

> > > morning, perhaps

> > > 10 or 15 years from now and wonder what happened.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim,

and while 'attacking' should never be the temper of the dialogue (but

well-spirited

provocation should), my MAIN POINT is that PERSONAL VALUES are INEXTRICABLY

IMPLICATED in such a discussion and that NEEDS TO BE RECOGNISED, ON THE TABLE,

and

UP FOR DISCUSSION.

Regards

Daniel

 

Chinese Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu wrote:

>

> Hi Daniel -

> Actually this thread started a few days before Jarrett jumped in. And to

> paraphrase your previous post, it all started with personal innuendoes being

> cast - and all of that was unnecessary and uncalled for.

>

> That's been my point from the start. I don't see any benefit, or a great

> deal of difference, in casting personal innuendoes OR attacking peoples'

> personal values in what should be a professional discourse.

>

> Kim Blankenship

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kim,

Malicious personal innuendos and 'attacks' - no question - there is no place for

them in

professional discourse. But Kim, my MAIN POINT here IS that personal values are

ENTIRELY and INEXTRICABLY IMPLICATED in this discussion. It is NOT POSSIBLE to

separate

what people consider 'good results' or 'success' with treatment and NOT discuss

the

practitioner's value system. That is THE central point here - and the one to

which we all

need to wake up to.

Regards and Respectfully

Daniel

 

Chinese Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu wrote:

>

> Hi Daniel -

> Actually this thread started a few days before Jarrett jumped in. And to

> paraphrase your previous post, it all started with personal innuendoes being

> cast - and all of that was unnecessary and uncalled for.

>

> That's been my point from the start. I don't see any benefit, or a great

> deal of difference, in casting personal innuendoes OR attacking peoples'

> personal values in what should be a professional discourse.

>

> Kim Blankenship

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 Hi Daniel:

 

 I have to agree with Kim and I wonder that you haven't responded to her

points:

 

1. The discussion was already getting heated, as Kim described, before Lonny

made any comments, and

 

2. It all started with personal innuendos and accusations against the teachers

and founders of C/T/T styles.

 

You, Daniel, said (yesterday):

 

" Some tempers are flaring, some are even using foul language now, malicious and

personal

 innuendos are being cast - and all of that is unnecessary and uncalled for. "

 

 I would agree with Kim that your implication that the malicious and personal

innuendos just started is incorrect since they had already happened at the very

beginning of the thread.

 

 Hugo

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Daniel Schulman <daniel.schulman

 

Saturday, 14 February, 2009 13:42:04

Re: Religion, Esoterica and Values - Back (almost) to the

original issue -

 

 

 

Hi Kim,

and while 'attacking' should never be the temper of the dialogue (but

well-spirited

provocation should), my MAIN POINT is that PERSONAL VALUES are INEXTRICABLY

IMPLICATED in such a discussion and that NEEDS TO BE RECOGNISED, ON THE TABLE,

and

UP FOR DISCUSSION.

Regards

Daniel

 

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu@ ...> wrote:

>

> Hi Daniel -

> Actually this thread started a few days before Jarrett jumped in. And to

> paraphrase your previous post, it all started with personal innuendoes being

> cast - and all of that was unnecessary and uncalled for.

>

> That's been my point from the start. I don't see any benefit, or a great

> deal of difference, in casting personal innuendoes OR attacking peoples'

> personal values in what should be a professional discourse.

>

> Kim Blankenship

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Daniel -

There's no need for all of the SHOUTING - it's rude and it doesn't help make

your points. In regard to your main point, I understand what you are saying

and couldn't possibly disagree more. And with your arrogant declaration

that all who fail to agree with your POV need to wake up, I rest my case.

 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Schulman

<daniel.schulmanwrote:

 

> Kim,

> Malicious personal innuendos and 'attacks' - no question - there is no

> place for them in

> professional discourse. But Kim, my MAIN POINT here IS that personal values

> are

> ENTIRELY and INEXTRICABLY IMPLICATED in this discussion. It is NOT POSSIBLE

> to separate

> what people consider 'good results' or 'success' with treatment and NOT

> discuss the

> practitioner's value system. That is THE central point here - and the one

> to which we all

> need to wake up to.

> Regards and Respectfully

>

> Daniel

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> Kim Blankenship

> <kuangguiyu wrote:

> >

> > Hi Daniel -

> > Actually this thread started a few days before Jarrett jumped in. And to

> > paraphrase your previous post, it all started with personal innuendoes

> being

> > cast - and all of that was unnecessary and uncalled for.

> >

> > That's been my point from the start. I don't see any benefit, or a great

> > deal of difference, in casting personal innuendoes OR attacking peoples'

> > personal values in what should be a professional discourse.

> >

> > Kim Blankenship

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>