Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Useful only for certain readers, March 6, 2003
This book is just what its title suggests: a straightforward, no-frills chronology of Chinese medicine from its beginnings in the Shang dynasty (1700-1100 BCE) up to the present day, with additional short commentaries on the influence of Chinese medicine on Japanese and Arabic medicine ¨ -- and all in less than 100 pages.
The text enumerates historic personages, writings, practices, and some key vocabulary, with Chinese written characters included in a glossary. All these factors make this book a useful reference (though perhaps over-priced) for certain readers. The authors do not discuss in any depth the principles of Chinese medicine, so this book will not be particularly helpful for readers seeking a deeper understanding of Chinese medical practice itself.
The book could have been improved by a good editor. Paragraphing is often overly long, and there are no headings to help the reader ¡°chunk¡± the information. In numerous instances the text is frustrating. For example (p.34): the authors describe Sun Simiao¡¯s Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE) code of ethics for physicians, saying it can be compared with the traditional Hippocratic Oath of western medicine, but then fail to make that comparison, and instead jump forward in a non sequitor to modern legal enforcement of ethics by western professional bodies ¨C thus conflating contexts and eliding 1000 years of history in both spheres. In another example (p. 44), they present demographics as to the numbers of traditional practitioners in 1989, and in the following sentence refer to the supplementation of ¡°fully trained doctors ¡by rural (barefoot) doctors¡¡±, thus suggesting that ¡°barefoot doctors¡± represent a contemporary practice instead of being a program instituted by Chairman Mao Zedong fully fifteen years earlier in 1974-5.
Such fuzziness in the details make this a book more useful for its general overview than for the reliability of its specific ¡®facts¡¯.
|
|
|
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Useful only for certain readers, March 6, 2003
This book is just what its title suggests: a straightforward, no-frills chronology of Chinese medicine from its beginnings in the Shang dynasty (1700-1100 BCE) up to the present day, with additional short commentaries on the influence of Chinese medicine on Japanese and Arabic medicine ¨C all in less than 100 pages. The text enumerates historic personages, writings, practices, and some key vocabulary, with Chinese written characters included in a glossary. All these factors make this book a useful reference (though perhaps over-priced) for certain readers. The authors do not discuss in any depth the principles of Chinese medicine, so this book will not be particularly helpful for readers seeking a deeper understanding of Chinese medical practice itself. The book could have been improved by a good editor. Paragraphing is often overly long, and there are no headings to help the reader ¡°chunk¡± the information. In numerous instances the text is frustrating. For example (p.34): the authors describe Sun Simiao¡¯s Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE) code of ethics for physicians, saying it can be compared with the traditional Hippocratic Oath of western medicine, but then fail to make that comparison, and instead jump forward in a non sequitor to modern legal enforcement of ethics by western professional bodies ¨C thus conflating contexts and eliding 1000 years of history in both spheres. In another example (p. 44), they present demographics as to the numbers of traditional practitioners in 1989, and in the following sentence refer to the supplementation of ¡°fully trained doctors ¡by rural (barefoot) doctors¡¡±, thus suggesting that ¡°barefoot doctors¡± represent a contemporary practice instead of being a program instituted by Chairman Mao Zedong fully fifteen years earlier in 1974-5. Such fuzziness in the details make this a book more useful for its general overview than for the reliability of its specific ¡®facts¡¯.
|
|
|
|