The Transmission of Chinese Medicine in Australia

Abstract

The paper explores some of the issues concerning the transmission of Chinese medicine in Australia, its practitioner training and the future of Chinese medicine as a distinct medical discipline in the Australian context. In China over the last century Chinese medicine was overhauled in order to align it with the biomedical perspective prevalent in the West. These changes, in turn, had important consequences for the transmission of CM in Australia and the West. But while the biomedicalisation of CM has offered the path of least resistance, it has also lead to unworkable simplifications and methodological failures. The paper thus argues for a renewed access to the tradition’s primary sources in order to ally the distinctive features and methods of traditional practice with biomedicine, as an alternative to an outright integration into biomedical practice.

Regional Influences on Chinese Medicine Education: Comparing Australia and Hong Kong

“…Bachelor degree programs were established or transferred from colleges into four publicly funded universities from the early 1990s, with the first degree program covering both acupuncture and herbal medicine opening at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) in 1996 [ 10 ]. This move into the university system occurred well before the statutory regulation of CM practice in Australia and was seen as offering opportunities for greater access to research and teaching resources [ 7 ].…”

“…Despite having been represented within Australian universities for over two decades, Garvey [ 7 ] describes CM as just “one tiny fish in a very large tertiary education…pond” (p. 7). Indeed, only three of the 40 Australian universities currently teach CM (RMIT University, University of Technology Sydney, and University of Western Sydney).…”

“…This merging of CM with other disciplines may also reflect a trend towards the biomedicalisation of CM. Indeed, funding is typically awarded for research that fits within a biomedical paradigm, focussing on molecular biology or employing randomised-control trials [ 7 ]. Such funding success may represent a double-edged sword for CM, with some commentators raising concerns over the fate of CM's traditional concepts which are not easily included in such research frameworks [ 7 ].…”

“…of national survey respondents reporting usage in the previous 12 months [ 48 ]. However, CM is argued to lack a strong presence in Australia [ 7 ] as well as an identifiable peak professional body [ 30 ]. In terms of CM education, Garvey [ 7 ] has suggested that because regulated and accredited CM training remains a relatively new concept in Australia, the discipline will continue to be treated with scepticism by proponents of biomedicine and will need to “prove” its legitimacy as a healthcare practice.…”

“…A small number of prior studies have examined the influence of culture and social structures on CM education in the United States [ 1 , 3 ], United Kingdom [ 6 ], and Australia [ 7 , 8 ]. However, there is a distinct lack of cross-national comparative research in this area, especially when considering the broader context of education in each country beyond specific degree programs.…”