英國政府認同中醫和準備立法：打着英國旗子吃中國飯。

直言了，2007·08·08。

英國是近代現代的西醫思想的發源地之一，是老牌子西醫了，且是最頑固的抵制中醫的地方，是西方世界裡給中醫藥找碴最厲害的國家。可是呢，許多年來，越來越多醫學科研證明了中醫效力；更重要的呢，越來越多的英國人使用中醫等傳統醫學，譬如，老英《地平線》雜誌報道，到2004年，英國大約有 1500名在專業機構註冊的中草藥專業機構或人員、1000個獨立經營；英國五分之一的人口經常使用中醫藥或其他傳統醫學做醫療保健，每年在中醫等傳統醫療方面的消費開支達1.3億英鎊，----使用中醫做保健醫療，已經成為英國公共利益和社會需求的一部分。

基於足夠數量質量的臨床試驗及科研分析，看到本國和世界範圍內對中醫需求越來越大的狀況，英國學界一些人強烈提議英國政府認同中醫藥和為中醫藥業務立法。經過辯論，英國政府終於接受提議，認同中醫藥、並專設聯合工作組為中醫藥立法做準備工作、大概在2008年09月完成。後面是公告原文，您可看看。

有趣兒的是，老英立法工作試圖把中醫針灸等“西醫化”，就是說呢，要在西醫框架之內搞“西醫針灸”，他們還給了專用術語“Western Medical Acupuncture”（西醫針灸），哈哈哈！如何理解呢？政府公告沒有詳細解釋，但結合其簡單說明和學界建議，可以看到這麼個圖景：

認同接納中醫本來就夠震撼英國的西醫思想了，一下子讓中醫全都獨立操作起來，那就可能是顛覆英國的西醫了，困難太大太大。想想看：數百年前，英國在亞洲和中國建立殖民地，就認為中國人是“煙槍”、“鴉片鬼”和“東亞病夫”，是充滿了野蠻巫術的地方。那種思想延續了很長時間，直到現代當代還有殘餘。正因為如此歷史文化認識，李約瑟討論中國科技歷史，儘管有許多錯誤，但畢竟認同了不少中國科技和說明中國是有科學的，那就給英國的中國認識造成了震動性影響，也使李約瑟成了著名學者。赫赫，在那種歷史認識的條件下，老英咋可能一下子全都接受“煙槍”、“鴉片鬼”和“東亞病夫”的醫學呢？所以說呢，接納認同中醫，對英國醫學界當然是個震撼甚至是個顛覆性的事情。

無奈，中醫全球普及是不可阻擋的趨勢，21世紀到來又是新一輪中醫普及高潮的前夜，按照老英自己現在的話說呢，中醫藥是個“big business（大生意）”、而不再是巫術了。為了滿足本國民眾需要，也為了英國能在全球普及中醫藥的市場中占有一席之地和使自己較快掌握中醫市場發展主動權，英國政府就想了個法子克服困難，譬如，在英國現有醫療保健系統下搞中醫針灸等等，讓西醫“吃掉”中醫、或把中醫改造為西醫。照中國流行話說呢，就是把“體制外”的東西放在“體制內”發展，可能更有力和更容易控制一些。當然啦，您要說英國紳士味道太濃和太要面子，是打着英國旗子吃中國飯，哈哈！那也未嘗不可。

順便說說：有些反中醫的人說，給中醫立法不意味着認同接納。哈哈！立法搞業務標準和行為規範的前提就是認同接納，否則呢，嘿嘿，根本就用不着立法搞標準和規範。譬如，偷竊行為是不被認同接納的，所以，就不搞立法規定偷竊的業務標準和行為規範，----哪個國家不認同不接納偷竊，卻還立法規定偷竊的業務標準和如何偷竊的行為規範？哈哈哈！說反中醫的人是愚昧無知，一點不錯。

附：英國政府關於為中醫等傳統醫學做立法工作的公告：
Statutory regulation of herbal medicine acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine practitioners
連接： http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Humanresourcesandtraining/Browsable/DH_5835963

Audiences: Chief xxxxutives and HR Directors

10 High-Impact Changes:
No. 2 - Effective recruitment, good induction and supportive management.
No. 7 - Appraisal policy development and implementation.
No. 9 - Championing good people management practices.
No. 10 - Effective training and development.

Summary:

The Government is committed to the statutory regulation of herbal medicine, acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine practitioners. We are in the process of setting up a Joint Working Group. We hope to have the Working Group set up and the first meeting arranged around June 2006 and to move gradually towards statutory regulation, probably in 2008/9.

Background:

In 2001 the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee recommended that acupuncture and herbal medicine practitioners be subject to statutory regulation in the public interest. The Government accepted the recommendations in principle.

Two working groups - chaired by Lord Chan and Mike Pittilo (a prominent academic) - made recommendations for regulation in 2003.

In 2004 a consultation document was issued proposing a regulatory framework involving a single Council to regulate acupuncturists and herbal medicine practitioners (these are both umbrella terms for a range of quite disparate groups ranging from those deeply rooted in ancient Chinese and Indian practices - traditional acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine - to modern use of traditional techniques within the overall framework of Western medical practice - e.g. Western Medical Acupuncture).

Earlier this year we published a summary of the response to consultation. Decisions were taken on specific aspects of the proposals where either there was continuing controversy (whether or not to have a single Council) or where the initial proposals were no longer suitable (we have changed our position in relation to the regulation of those who are already registered with another healthcare regulator e.g. doctors also practising acupuncture).

Specifically the following were approved:

-statutory regulation with protection of title;
-common system across the UK;
-key functions of regulator to include keeping a register, determining standards of entry, advising about standards of conduct proceedings;
-regulator to have primary duty to protect the public;
-other duties to include working in partnership with other key groups; consultation; taking proper account of traditional basis for practice; public education;
-proposals for admission to the Register, including transitional arrangements and assessment of overseas qualified practitioners;
-development of standards of proficiency and code of conduct for practitioners;
-regulator to regulate continuing professional development;
-proposals for management of conduct/fitness to practice tribunals and appeal mechanisms;
-early establishment of xxxxal Working Group to prepare for regulation.