Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘history’

http://www.jcimjournal.com/en/FullText2.aspx?articleID=jcim20120502
Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine: Volume 10 May, 2012 Number 5
Arthur Yin Fan (McLean Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, PLC. Vienna, VA 22182, USA )

Received March 23, 2012; accepted March 26, 2012; published online May 15, 2012. Full-text LinkOut at PubMed. Journal title in PubMed: Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. Correspondence: Arthur Yin Fan, PhD, MD, LAc; Tel: +1-703-499-4428; Fax: +1-703-547-8197; E-mail: ArthurFan@ChineseMedicineDoctor.US

Forty years ago, President Nixon’s visit to China was a sign of the start of the normalization of Sino-American relations. Before and after President Nixon’s journey, the Chinese government’s “acupuncture diplomacy” was very effective. American reporters, politicians and well-known medical doctors or scholars visited many Chinese hospitals and witnessed numerous and various operations performed on patients under acupuncture anesthesia. When they returned, they reported these miraculous stories occurring in China and expressed their impressions. They were also interviewed on television shows. These reports activated American’s curiosity about China and the magic of acupuncture. One story especially, “Now, Let Me Tell You About My Appendectomy in Peking” written by James Reston, the vice-president and the most famous columnist of The New York Times, about his own experience in Beijing, directly triggered American’s interest in acupuncture. What’s interesting is that Reston’s story appeared on the front page of The New York Times along with the Apollo 15 liftoff, on July 26, 1971, which seems to hint that acupuncture would land in the United States of America like Apollo landed on the moon. We consider Reston’s acupuncture article as the most effective “ignition” of the long lasting fire of American’s acupuncture fever. The first real big wave of “acupuncture fever” was actually started by the Washington Acupuncture Center, also known as the Acupuncture Center of Washington, which was established by Dr. Yao Wu Lee (Sam, 李耀武), Dr. Arnold Benson and Mr. Charles Newmark. It is the first widely reported acupuncture center in modern history of the United States and was influential in furthering the development of acupuncture fever. The center was established in May, 1972, and initially named as Acupuncture Center of New York. It opened to patients on July 12, 1972, but closed shortly after due to the order of the New York Board of Medicine. Then it got approval to operate and moved to Washington, D.C. and re-opened on December 28, 1972.
There were several firsts achieved by this center. (1) There were more than 280 domestic and international newspapers that reported the opening of the center. (2) During its “golden time”, there were about approximately one thousand patients treated per day. (3) At the federal level, as per this center’s request, in the category of professions, the United States Citizenship and the Immigration Services created a totally new profession — acupuncturist, and defined acupuncture as a medical practice. Since 1973, there were opportunities for acupuncturists to immigrate to the United States. (4) In 1973, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States announced that patients could claim their acupuncture spending as medical expense in their tax returns. (5) Due to a win of a lawsuit in the Federal Court in 1974, a patient’s right to choose acupuncture treatment by his own judgment and an acupuncturist’s right to practice acupuncture were protected. At the federal level, acupuncture started to become an independent profession in the United States and started to diversify control held by the Western medicine-trained physicians. It also laid a basis for acupuncture or oriental medicine legislation in each state. We should remember that Washington, D.C. was the first local authority to approve non-physician (acupuncturists) to practice acupuncture in the history of the United States.
Washington Acupuncture Center is the first acupuncture center, with the longest history in the United States. To record the history of acupuncture, in December of 2011, the author, Dr. Arthur Fan interviewed Dr. Yao Wu Lee, one of founders of this center, who is 80 years old and still in practice.

Dr. Arthur Yin Fan (Fan): Dr. Lee, I heard that in 1972, you started the first legal acupuncture center in the United States. Could you tell me why and how you set up this center, and what challenge you met?
Dr. Yao Wu Lee (Lee): This center has three stages: initially it was in New York, then in Washington, D.C., at last, moved to the south of Florida. I came to the United States to resume my academic career from Israel at the end of 1971. I was appointed by an educational training center in Manhattan, called the Education Solution, Inc. The head of the company was Dr. Katana, a very tall and strong Jew, with nine PhD degrees. The company got contracts from the American government and focused on training of the teachers from New York’s elementary and middle schools, and unifying the teaching contents. My task was to develop software for the teaching and making the management more efficient, which I completed quickly. At the same time, Dr. Katana had strong interest in Chinese medicine and let me develop a Chinese medicine diagnosis system. He had known that I had developed an acupuncture point-detector in Taiwan between 1954 and 1960 (at that time, there was no policies supporting Chinese medicine in Taiwan, so this acupuncture point-detector actually was not in use at that time). His idea was to apply a machine to collect the data of patient’s pulse and then automatically reach a diagnosis. This plan required a lot of time and needed a large investment, i.e. at least more than a million dollars. Another issue was that there have been so many different judgments among different Chinese medicine doctors regarding diagnosing from the pulse information for the same patient, due to both objective and subjective reasons. So, I felt that this task was not easy to achieve during a limited time. I planed to go to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and resume my original career in electronics and automation.
During the beginning of 1972, around President Nixon’s China visit, there were many reports about acupuncture in China in newspapers and on television. In such a social environment, I started to have a desire to practice acupuncture in the United States. I was busy remodeling my acupuncture point-detector and developing an electric stimulator. At the same time, I visited several Chinese medicine doctors in Chinatown of the New York city, such as Dr. Shuyu Li (李树酉), Dr. Ching Y. Ting (丁景源), Dr. Huoren Fang (方活人), and Dr. Chingpang Lee (李静平). I stayed with them for three months. My feeling was that they mainly practiced in their own homes, in buildings that were very old, and the space was very small, dark and to some extent poor in hygiene. On average, the fee for acupuncture was $3 to $5. Acupuncture needles could be ordered in stores without any limitation. At that time, acupuncture was not a formal, accredited medical field, and there was no acupuncturist as a profession in legal documents in the United States.
Fan notes: At that time in the “Chinatowns” of major cities in the United States such as those in California and New York, there were a few Chinese medicine doctors practicing acupuncture or Chinese herbology without license. The majority of their patients were mostly Chinese. Because there were no descriptions, definitions or explanations for Chinese medicine or acupuncture, the practice of Chinese medicine or acupuncture was in a “gray area”, between the legal and the illegal. There were no obvious conflicts between a Chinese medicine doctor and a Western doctor. In most states, the Boards of Medicine did not administer Chinese medicine or acupuncture at all.
In my spare time, I performed acupuncture treatments for my neighbors and the teachers who were trainees in the company I worked with. I have learned Chinese medicine before when I was in the mainland China. I knew two Jewish friends through Dr. He, an old Chinese medicine doctor, and Dr. Chingpang Lee. One was Dr. Arnold Benson, who was a graduate of the New York Medical College, and had served as an army physician of the United States in Korea between 1962 and 1964, and knew of acupuncture. Another was Mr. Charles Newmark, a real estate developer, with experience in administration. Both of them, like me, were interested in opening an acupuncture clinic and visited Chinese medicine doctors. At that time, I was 39 years old and they were in their fifties. There was no big difference in age; they treated me as a “half Jew” because I spent several years in Israel. In April 1972, after several discussions, we, as a partnership, made a decision to start an acupuncture center. A formal application to the New York Board of Medicine was made in May 1972, but we did not get a response.
I felt that we had no time to wait, so we mailed a report to the New York Board of Medicine, explaining that the clinic would be operated by Dr. Arnold Benson, a Western-trained doctor, while other hired Chinese medicine doctors and I would perform acupuncture (similar to the nurses or assistants performing injections or drawing blood in clinic) under the doctor’s supervision. I felt this explanation should be accepted by the New York Board of Medicine and ordinary people. However, we did not get a response. We decided to just do it. The clinic was located at the East 73rd Street and called the Acupuncture Center of New York or also known as the New York Acupuncture Center.
Fan notes: “Chinese medicine doctors performing acupuncture under the supervision of (Western-trained) medical doctors” or “(Western-trained) medical doctors performing the diagnosis and Chinese medicine doctors performing acupuncture treatment” was a strategy under a special political climate at that time. This was first applied by Dr. Yao Wu Lee, and later, many legislation agencies in many states applied such terms in their acupuncture regulations. After 40 years of development, most of the states in the United States removed the requirement of medical doctors’ supervision. However, in most states, acupuncturists still have no rights for clinical diagnosis.
On July 5, 1972, Wednesday, we held a press conference for a news release in New York to announce the opening of the acupuncture center. Because Chinese medicine and acupuncture clinic was totally new in the United States, it caused many concerns. More than 90 journalists and reporters came from famous newspapers, journals and television companies, such as the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC), the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Times, Newsday, The East West Journal, The New York Times and News Week, and may have also included some other professionals and medical doctors. We arranged 12 patients to introduce their health issues, acupuncture experience and the results. I remembered one of the patients was a famous priest and violinist in Manhattan, Rev. Norman Catir, who had headaches and mild memory loss. Another was Mr. Don Lamond who had “osteoarthritis of the left hip” or “sciatica”. At about 11 o’clock, I as the Chinese medicine representative, Benson as the medical doctor representative and Newmark as the administration representative introduced acupuncture and the operation method of the clinic to the media, and replied to their questions. Benson talked first. He knew some acupuncture in Korea, but lacked knowledge of Chinese medicine theory and clinical experience in acupuncture. His personality was simple, modest but not very good at debate. He could not continue to reply when some reporters questioned him again and again, only replying ‘we are not a quack operation, we are a medical practice’. The questions were related to legality of the practice of acupuncture without the approval from the Board of Medicine, the lack of scientific evidence, and the use of acupuncture to only making money. One very extreme reporter of The New York Times said, ‘China is an under-developed country; there is no medicine at all’ — he wanted to deny acupuncture as a medical practice.
I came from Shandong Province, China and was very angry with the insults to China and acupuncture. I found that there was chaos and I had to control the situation. I stood up and questioned the reporters loudly with broken English, ‘What is medicine? What is science? I ask you everyone, who could explain clearly?’ At that moment, Newmark pulled my clothes to let me calm down and speak slowly. ‘I believe Chinese medicine is a science, also a philosophy. Ask you — why Aspirin is effective? I believe that there is not any scientist or medical doctor who could explain it very clearly. Medicine actually is an interdisciplinary science and clinical experience. No one could explain very clearly. Many conditions actually are unsure. The Western medicine is also developed from clinical experience. Chinese medicine has more than 3 000 years of history and has treated billions of patients. It is still useful today; it should have a scientific basis. Sure, acupuncture mixes some clinical experience. However, you could not say it is not a science before you try to understand it. If I use Hebrew to explain the scientific knowledge, you will say I don’t understand, but you could not use ‘I don’t understand’ as a criterion to judge if what I say is belonging to the scientific or the nonscientific. It is the same thing — you do not understand Chinese medicine theory, so you treat acupuncture as witchcraft. It is wrong in your attitude. I am a scientist, also a clinical doctor, here I give you an explanation — acupuncture is using external stimulation to heal internal disorder or illness.’ I invited Mr. Lamond and wanted to show acupuncture on his body. At this moment, a reporter of The New York Times interrupted me and wanted me to explain it in medical terms. ‘You sit down. I will give you an explanation later,’ I replied loudly. I showed an acupuncture point to everyone on the patient’s body, the Huantiao point, with an acupuncture point-detector. It has six instruments, one indicating lamp and a buzz. When it finds the acupuncture point, the machine will flash the lamp and comfortable music will be heard. Dr. Chingpang Lee inserted a 4-inch needle to the patient’s Huantiao point. The patient’s hip pain was decreased immediately. At the same time, Catir’s headache was also treated by acupuncture. He felt much better. The patients and we replied to reporters’ questions. The atmosphere was very active. I felt that the press conference reached its purpose, and it was completed on time. That night, the New York television evening news showed our press conference, especially our magic machine, which caused a big shock. Over three hundred patients called us for appointments or consultations and our eight assistants were busy for a whole night. The next day on July 6, there were more than 280 domestic and international newspapers reporting our acupuncture center’s opening. The United States is a country trusting of science and evidence. People got a strong interest in acupuncture by understanding the theory preliminarily and seeing the results. I predicted our center would be a big success. (Notes: Figure 1 is a photo taken at that time).

Figure 1 Dr. Yao Wu Lee using an acupuncture point-detector to locate Yingxiang point on a young lady’s face on July 5, 1972 in New York. Provided by Yao Wu Lee.

July 12, Wednesday, was the actual opening day. Many reporters of the media came with patients for further observation and follow-up reporting. One week later, the number of patients reached 150 per day; after three weeks, more than 200 per day. We had to rent more office space and expanded to 4 000 square feet (Fan notes: about 400 m2). The “acupuncture fever” caused concern of the New York Board of Medicine. It sent an order to our center telling us to close, stating that ‘Acupuncture is a medical practice. Only licensed medical doctor can practice it.’ At that time, our center had more than ten thousand dollars income per day. Closing the clinic would cause a big loss. In addition, there were many patients from various places awaiting the acupuncture treatments, which also caused us a big stress. On the third day, our administration director Newmark got a new idea of making medical doctors perform the acupuncture under the Chinese medicine doctor’s supervision, which meant our clinic could resume. However, the medical doctors were not familiar with acupuncture. In most cases, both the Chinese medicine doctors and the medical doctors performed acupuncture together. After two weeks, the second order from the New York Board of Medicine came stating that ‘Acupuncture is a medical practice. Only licensed medical doctors can practice it in a medical school or a teaching hospital.’ We tried to contact a teaching hospital. However, the hospital wanted to totally control our finances and operations. At this moment, we got the third order stating that “Acupuncture is a medical practice. Only licensed medical doctors can practice it. It must be performed in an approved research project in a medical school.” This actually aimed to ban any Chinese medicine doctor or Western doctor treating patients with acupuncture. Our lawyer started an appeal, and we believed such orders lacked a legal basis. We practiced medicine legally, and we believed we should continue the practice until the court says we can’t. As the Board forced us to close, we insisted on continuing the practice. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved and a court order caused us to close. They froze our bank account. The reason for the court to order closure was that ‘the FBI does not want people to cause political storm and affect the election’. At noon of November 19, the second day after President Nixon was re-elected, more than 20 FBI agents and police with black suits came to close our center.
Fan notes: I heard from a New York Chinese medicine doctor that, at that time when the doctor heard the FBI coming, he rushed down the stairs, lost his shoes on the way, and ran out of the rear door with the help of a nurse. The situation was really scary!
At that time, our doctors and nurses, other assistants and administrators responded calmly except for one Chinese medicine doctor you mentioned who was overwhelmed with panic. He thought the FBI would arrest all the doctors, so he ran out. On that day, Benson and Newmark were not at the clinic, so I handled the situation. I requested to the FBI agents to allow all patients who had already paid to complete the treatments, which would be fair with the patients. They discussed and then agreed. So, on that day, the center actually closed at 5:30 PM. The whole procedure was under control.
A lot of our patients went to the court to protest. The New York State Attorney General worried that the events would expand and mediated between the Board and us, and let both parties reach a settlement out of the court. The last settlement was “the Board withdrew the lawsuit, and our center agreed to close the office temporarily”. The next day, our bank account was freed and the attorney received payment. The New York State Attorney General sent a special notice and put pressure on the New York Board of Medicine to prepare the acupuncture legislation as soon as possible so that acupuncturists are able to be in a legal practice.
Fan notes: Dr. Arnold Benson was a medical doctor. His opening of a clinic using acupuncture as a therapy was totally legal. However, because of the wrong attitude of the New York Board of Medicine, which wanted to ban acupuncture and was forced by the special political climate, this acupuncture center intermittently opened for five months, and then had to shut down. The ban of the authorities brought disaster not only to the Acupuncture Center of New York but also to the original practice in the Chinatown. All the New York Chinese medicine practitioners or acupuncturists had been banned. In 1976, the New York State started to allow acupuncturists to practice acupuncture under the supervision of a medical doctor. But it was not until 1991 that the acupuncture regulation was able to go through.
That night, we partners ate dinner quietly, and then held a meeting. For the future, there were different views among us. The other two said: “Lee, just close down.” Especially Newmark, who wanted to change direction, was engaged in real estate. However, I insisted to continue to do acupuncture. There was a friend who was the boss of a large cruise ship company in New York. He suggested bringing the patients to the cruise, and as long as they were three nautical miles out of New York, the Board would have no control. I said, on the contrary, that even if it ends in court, we should open acupuncture clinic in the United States itself. We debated until three in the morning. Everyone was tired. Then Newmark said, ‘Benson and I are two Jews, Lee worked as half a Jew. The Jews have always been indomitable, and we admit Lee’s views. The bank account still has $300 000 left (equivalent to about 3 million now, since breakfast at that time cost only $1.20), which could be used for the clinic development in the future.’ They finally agreed with me.
Considering the difficulty of recruiting the staff, I arranged all the doctors and nurses to work part-time. We could not see patients, so we had training and taught ourselves. Our lawyer wrote letters to the Governor of each state talking about the misfortune of acupuncture in New York and hoping to find a place to continue the opening. We proposed to have a medical doctor supervising, while a Chinese medicine doctor performed the acupuncture. The governor of Puerto Rico agreed that we could go there, but it is far away and is not a domestic state of the United States. We were hesitant to go. During this period, there were sympathizers to our ideas. They thought, for example, an aircraft company, using a Boeing 747 to transform it into a clinic in the international airport. Then local governments would have no control for doing acupuncture there. This company wanted to use acupuncture to make money. I think this is heresy, so we declined. They said as long as I want, they could help us at any time. Some newspapers reported sympathy for our situation. There were some patients who called their State Governor and Attorney General to request help for us.
At the occasion of being unable to do anything, in the afternoon of Friday, December 22, I received a call from the Washington, D.C. Board of Medicine. The director said: “We invite you to Washington, D.C. The political climate here is much better than New York. You can come at once.” I was in disbelief and asked: “Can you give me a formal letter of invitation?” He said his secretary would issue that, so I could come and pick it up next Monday at noon time. At that time, Washington, D.C. was directly managed by the Congress and was not an independent city. Its Board of Medicine consisted of non-medical staff and was very open-minded. On Saturday morning, we left New York and went to Washington, D.C. Doctors and management staff took the car, while other supporting staff went by train. Many journalists and reporters also followed us to the station.
Our clinic in Washington, D.C. was at the intersection of I Street and 18th Street. It was next to the Pennsylvania Avenue, and not far from the George Washington University. The White House could be seen very easily. The clinic was located in the fourth floor, with 4 500 square feet space (about 450 m2) and called the Acupuncture Center of Washington (also known as Washington Acupuncture Center). Newmark rented 30 dormitories in Arlington, Virginia for our staff. In the first week, we quickly renovated the clinic. In the second week, on December 28, 1972, our clinic reopened. Many newspapers reported this exciting news. After two and half months, the number of patients sharply increased to more than 250 per day. The clinic space was insufficient, so I decided to open a second clinic at 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, which was a few blocks away from the first clinic, with the space of 12 000 square feet (about 1 200 m2), and located on the 7th floor of an embassy. At peak time, there were 650 patients per day at this clinic. In the two clinics, there were nearly a thousand patients (plus family members, more than 2 000 people) per day. Due to the existing of these acupuncture clinics, the hotel business in the surrounding area (including Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland) and the business of transportation of patients to Washington, D.C. were extremely flourishing. At that time, Washington, D.C. became the capital of “acupuncture”. (Notes: Figure 2 is a photo taken at the end of 1972. Dr Lee was using electroacupuncture to treat a patient)


Figure 2 Using electroacupuncture technique to treat a patient by Dr. Yao Wu Lee on December 28, 1972 in Washington, D.C. I Street clinic. Provided by Arthur Fan.

Fan notes: “Acupuncture Center of Washington,” or “Washington Acupuncture Center” was the first “totally legal” acupuncture center in the United States. It was the only one that opened to the public, not for research. The approved date was on December 22, 1972. After that, there were 11 other acupuncture clinics getting approved in Washington, D.C. in 1973 and 1974.
Fan: I heard that you organized buses to bring patients to Washington, D.C. for acupuncture treatment. Is that true?
Lee: A seriously sick patient in a desperate situation came to our acupuncture center. After about one month of acupuncture treatments, he recovered. His Chinese medicine doctor was Ms. Susan He. The patient felt that acupuncture has unexpected effects on many diseases or disorders. In order to help patients from everywhere, he launched chartered coaches to send patients to our center, mainly from New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and other places several times a week. Basically, the buses shuttled patients back and forth in the same day, with two or three buses a day (120 to 180 patients). Many patients were grateful to him for his help. At that time, there was very few acupuncture clinics and our patients came from throughout the United States. We also had many foreign patients.
Due to the booming of acupuncture business and the differences in thinking, acupuncture had once again aroused the anxiety and unease of Western medicine-dominated medical institutions and drug manufacturers throughout the United States. They united and sued the government of Washington, D.C., but they lost. However, the condition was changing in their favour. In early 1974, Washington, D.C. adopted the “home rule” and became an independent city, which means that it was no longer managed by the Congress. It established a new Board of Medicine, which consisted of local conservative medical doctors. Acupuncture once again became the object of attack. They invited some reporters to engage in a so-called investigation. A reporter named Mike, from The Washington Times, spent one week in our clinics, talked with our patients, and listened to our lectures. One morning, his article was published in the newspaper with a half inch high headline “Acupuncture is an art of deception or a liar?” He allegedly interviewed more than 80 patients who said they were not feeling better after acupuncture. Most people felt disappointed in acupuncture. Even more damaging, he said he didn’t know where the acupuncture doctors came from. He called for the immigration service to investigate the background of theses doctors.
In fact, our Chinese medicine doctors or acupuncturists, in addition to those hired from New York, were recruited from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao through the legal procedures into the United States. In 1973, our immigration lawyer applied for a filing to the Manpower Committee of the Congress to employ acupuncturists in the health care services (Medical Practice). This was the first time that the name of “acupuncturist” was used in the federal legal documents and the definition of acupuncturists was engaged in the medical service.
In 1974, the new Board of Medicine of Washington, D.C. gave us orders and let us close our acupuncture offices six times. The American Medical Association combined with the Board of Medicine, Washington, D.C., sued our acupuncture center in Washington, D.C. federal court. The reason they did not use a local court was to deny acupuncture at the federal level. In order to save the acupuncture profession, as well as our acupuncture center, we had to respond seriously.
When we were involved in the lawsuit, there were warm responses throughout the country. Many of our former patients, acupuncturists, and the medical doctors who knew and liked acupuncture came to help out, which gave us great support. The court convened a serious acupuncture hearing. The judge continuously listened to the testimonies from the public for three months. Our patients from all over the country came to testify. The testimonies of many patients moved the judge. For example, a female patient from New York called Barbara, 45 years old, was seriously ill. Her husband left her and forced her to divorce. She was emaciated and even unable to speak. She ate very little and her complexion was bloodless. The conventional doctors of New York estimated that she could only live for 20 days. When sent by a friend to our center, our medical doctors checked her and also felt there was no hope for survival and suggested that she should not receive acupuncture. It was me who saved this patient with acupuncture. She totally recovered after six months of acupuncture treatments. I noticed that when Barbara told her story, the judge, more than 80 years old, removed his glasses with a handkerchief. People present were deeply touched. Another three months passed and the court announced the decision — patients have the right to choose acupuncture and acupuncturists lawfully have rights to practice. In addition, the court emphasized that it was the final decision and it will not accept the appeal.
We eventually won the lawsuit at the federal level. The legal status of acupuncture and the operating rights of our clinic were protected. At the same time, many acupuncturists and enthusiastic people started to actively fight for acupuncturists’ rights in each state. Acupuncture legislations were started in some states. No doubt, we won our lawsuit and helped acupuncture throughout the United States, and we were very glad. However, we were also exhausted — we put in a boundless energy and time and spent a lot of money.
The subsequent experience was even more severe.

Fan: How about the situation of the center afterwards?
Lee: False and negative reports about acupuncture in some newspapers resulted in a large negative impact on our practice. It had significant impact on the numbers of our patients. Initially, it was reduced to 600 patients per day, then 500, 400 and so on. The rapid decline of patients caused us to be unable to afford the rent for large space of the clinics. Both clinics on the I Street and the Massachusetts Avenue closed in 1974. The partnership was broken. The shares were distributed to the partners. Many doctors and nurses also went away. Acupuncture legislation in Massachusetts was earlier than many other states so there was a better political climate there. We sent Dr. Yufan Jiang (江玉凡) and Dr. Yulin Jin (金玉林) to Boston and Princeton, to set up new acupuncture centers. Doctors originally from New York basically went back to New York. Dr. Benson, Mr. Newmark, Dr. Chingpang Lee, Dr. David P.J. Hung (洪伯荣) and others re-started acupuncture centers in two different locations of the New York City. However, a few months later, all of these centers were closed due to the crisis of internal management.
My colleagues and I moved the Washington Acupuncture Center to the Connecticut Inn which located in the middle of the Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C., with a total of eight rooms. We worked there for about two years. In 1976, I let our staff Dr. Greg Chen (陈一强) handle the management (in 1980, he moved the clinic to Chinatown, Washington, D.C.). It could be said that between 1974 and 1976, our center experienced a great turn of events, and we were all very depressed. However, I thought if we could continue, there will be hope.
In 1976, I moved the major part of Washington Acupuncture Center to Florida. Until now, it still has three clinics.

Fan: You are an acupuncture pioneer in Florida. Is the experience of your acupuncture practice very smooth there? Do you think there are some relationships between certain obstacles, setbacks in Chinese medicine or acupuncture met in the United States, and Chinese medicine or acupuncture itself, as well as clinic organizers themselves?
Lee: In 1976, per invitation of a patient, also my friend, I moved the major staff of our acupuncture center to Florida and set up several clinics over the time. It was still called the Washington Acupuncture Center. At the beginning, I flew to St. Petersburg and took a taxi for two hours, found and rented an office of 4 000 square feet at the Central Avenue. Our clinic had six Chinese medicine doctors and six Western medicine doctors, from Washington, D.C. There were 60 to 70 patients per day. In 1977, we opened a center in Palm Beach with more than 80 patients per day, but the parking lot was too small to accommodate more patients. Later, we opened another center in West Palm Beach. Now we focus on Florida’s southeast. In order to facilitate patient treatment, we have three clinics in Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and Sunrise. I also work part-time in a local hospital to provide acupuncture services for rehabilitation patients.
Our patients have trusted us throughout, but there were unfriendly people. In 1978, a reporter of the Florida Sunset News, a local newspaper of the Washington Star News, took the pamphlet from my clinic. She noticed that this pamphlet listed many disease names that acupuncture can treat. Then, the responsible person called us saying: “The Medical Association will sue your acupuncture clinic; the clinic should be closed because only (Western) medical doctors can make medical claims.” I asked her: “What is the background of the person who proposed that I should close the clinic? Is it a doctor or an acupuncturist? Has the person ever experienced acupuncture before?” She said: “I do not think so.” I counterattacked her: “Since you are not a doctor, and not experienced in acupuncture, what qualifications do you have to force me to close the clinic? If you want to continue to harass me, I’ll sue you.” She was at a loss with words so I used some minutes to introduce the principles of acupuncture. This newspaper did not come back asking for trouble.
I feel that the Chinese medicine doctors and acupuncturists should spend more time on public education, because the principle and theory of Chinese medicine is too foreign to the Western people. We must safeguard the basic rights and interests of our profession. We, Chinese medicine doctors and acupuncturists should fight the rights for ourselves. The professionals of Chinese medicine and acupuncture have been generally too humble and timid for fear of backfire. I would like to engage in the second revolution, if I were younger. We are in a legal medical practice. Why won’t many health insurance programs pay the cost of acupuncture treatments? At the federal level, why does the Medicare not cover acupuncture? We are the same as a healthcare provider. The Medicare pays for the work of other healthcare practitioners, but does not pay for acupuncture. If we do not struggle and do not fight, it will be in the same condition even after a hundred years. No one will help us for that right except ourselves. If we win, acupuncture will be accessible by all the healthcare programs. Our generation invests more, but the benefit is not necessarily greater. However, the next generation of Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists can reap the benefits. A non-profit organization established by my patients (I am a consultant), specifically called on governments at all levels to attach importance to acupuncture and has sent many letters to President Obama, who could vigorously support acupuncture legislation at the federal level, and help acupuncture become covered by the Medicare. Until now, however, it seems to be with little success. It seems that we have to put more investment and more financial resources into gaining the rights to fight in a federal court. This method’s efficiency is much higher than other options. I hope acupuncturists and Chinese medicine professionals could recognize this.

Fan: I heard that you were involved in many works during and after 1980’s acupuncture legislation in Florida.
Lee: In 1981, a Florida congressman who was a medical doctor wanted to rectify the acupuncture market, and let the state issue acupuncture licenses. The state authority proposed six categories of healthcare professionals, including medical doctor (MD), orthopedic surgeon (DO), chiropractic physician (DC), naturopathic physician, etc., who can directly get the right to perform acupuncture. Acupuncturists, however, should participate in an examination in order to get the license. I hired a lawyer to appeal because the above requirements were illogical. I proposed as long as Chinese medicine professionals or acupuncturists practice acupuncture for more than two years under the supervision of Western medical doctor (there should be evidence such as a contract, or payroll records, medical records and so on), it is not necessary for them to pass the exam and get the license. Later, I was hired by a committee which drafted the Florida Acupuncture Regulation (Ad hoc Committee). I insisted that regardless whether one was a Chinese medicine professional, Western medicine doctor or other professionals, as long as one wants to practice acupuncture, he/she must be treated equally and must pass an acupuncture examination. At the beginning, there were 59 people who applied for an acupuncture license including 29 ethnic Chinese and 30 of other ethnic groups. After a three-day examination, including acupuncture theory, acupuncture points and the actual operation, with acupuncture examiners hired from California, there were 19 people (including all Chinese medicine practitioners from our clinic. There were several Western medical doctors as well.) qualified to get an acupuncture license. However, there were quite a number of Chinese medicine professionals, acupuncturists, and some Western medicine doctors who had practiced acupuncture for more than two years who boycotted the examination. With coordination with the state authority, a Grandfather Law was applied to them. There were more than 100 people who got the license without taking the acupuncture examination.
When drafting acupuncture regulation, some Western medicine doctors added harsh requirements, such as acupuncture clinics must have two restrooms. I argued that many acupuncturists do not need a large clinic space. Patients for acupuncture would not come at the same time. Many clinics of other professions actually only have one restroom. So the finalized regulation stated that acupuncture clinics are just required to have one restroom. At the same time, I insisted to change the regulation name of the licensed acupuncturist as Acupuncture Physician (AP), who no longer practices under the supervision of Western medical doctor. Unlicensed acupuncturists still could continue to practice acupuncture under the supervision of medical doctors. A majority of Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists were very satisfied with the work I did, and understood my situation. However, there were very few Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists who were unhappy with that regulation. There was a lady from Thailand who was angry with me, who did not meet the exemption requirement, and also did not want to practice acupuncture under the supervision of medical doctors.
Later, I served three terms as a Florida Acupuncture License Examiner, two terms as president of the Florida State Acupuncture Association and two years as Chairman of continuing education (1989-1990) for the Florida State Acupuncture Association. After 1985, I also taught acupuncture for pre-med students in the Florida Atlantic University and the professionals in the rehabilitation department of the Boca Raton Community Hospital.
In appreciation for my contributions to acupuncture in the United States, I received the first national “Acupuncturist of the Year” Award for 1983-1984 from the Center of Chinese Medicine in California.

Fan: Dr. Lee, could we discuss the fee schedule of your clinics? Is there any difference in your patients between the present and the past? In addition, it is said that the Jewish people played an important role in acupuncture legalization in the United States and were driven by their interest that in it, what is your opinion?
Lee: When we were in New York and Washington, D.C., the fee for initial visit was $50 and that for the subsequent visit was $20 to 25 (later, increased to $35). Forty years ago, one dollar is roughly equivalent to current $10. For example, if we talk about the price of a car, in the early 1970s, the price of a Lincoln was $6 000 and a luxury Ford car was $4 000. Now their prices are $60 000 and $80 000, respectively. So, if we still apply the fee schedule of that time, the fee for the initial visit and the second visit should be $500 and $350, respectively. However, under the real conditions, our fee schedule is $80 for self-pay patient, as 1/6 to 1/4 of the original fee schedule. Some patients have insurance for acupuncture, which may pay us at about $200 per time with limited times. The fee schedule is much lower than before, so the model of both Western and Chinese medicine doctor seeing the same patient is no longer affordable. Hiring a good Chinese medicine doctor is sometimes also difficult.
Before, there were very few acupuncture clinics in the United States. Patients from all over the country, even from all over of the world came to us, so our center could have 1 000 patients per day (two clinics combined). There were many patients with intractable diseases or very serious conditions. Later, the business of our center was no longer as successful as that time due to the malicious newspaper reports which caused patient’s misunderstanding of acupuncture and bad influence from the lawsuit (although we won). The number of patients was not as many as before. Furthermore, due to acupuncture legislation in many States, more acupuncturists could open acupuncture clinics. The number of acupuncturists, both migrating from all over the world and graduating from accredited schools in the United States, have increased. The increasing of clinics has caused the number of patients to decrease in each clinic. Currently, I have about 30 patients per day from the surrounding area and not many with serious conditions.
To improve the income of Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists and to match the income of other practitioners, such as medical doctors and physical therapists, we should make efforts to promote insurance companies to pay for the acupuncture treatment. Currently, however, many Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists are “comfortable” with their individual business and not many are aware of the need to engage in this important area.
For those who feel that the Jewish people played an important role in the development of acupuncture in the United States due to their interest in money (or say, “greed”), it is unfair statement about our Jewish friends. From my personal experience, there were two Jewish friends of mine involved in our center’s establishment and operation. They did get certain compensation. However, it was not as much as many people thought. Like me, they were driven by the passion to promote acupuncture. In our clinics, eighty percent of the income was used to pay the employees’ wages, operational expenses (including renting, employee training), and the expenses of litigation. Litigation expenses were considerable. For example, there was over $500 000 spent for the lawsuit in 1974 in Washington, D.C. In order to change the resentment of Western medical doctors, to improve the external environment of the acupuncture profession, and to reduce the external pressure on the Board of Medicine (handled by the Congress), in 1973 we invested tens of thousands of dollars to open acupuncture training programs for Western medicine doctors (MDs and DOs) in the George Washington University School of Medicine. Each class had 30 doctors, lasting three months (40 h per week), which was one of the earliest acupuncture training programs for Western medical doctors in the United States. We had a total of five classes. From 1973 to 1975, we invested over $70 000 at the Department of Medical Biology, George Washington University School of Medicine, to conduct the studies of acupuncture on rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore, from the perspective of return, investing in another field, such as real estate, would benefit more. However, my Jewish friends and I chose to promote acupuncture.
Personally, if I made another choice, such as returning to Taiwan to continue my previous career, obtaining a “General” title should be predictable. If I chose to work in the United States Space Center, I would be a good scientist. The reason I chose Chinese medicine and acupuncture was that the acupuncture profession brings me a sense of accomplishment. I am 80 years old, and until now, I still work in the clinic (see Figure 3).


Figure 3 Dr. Yao Wu Lee treating a patient with acupuncture in Florida (2012). Provided by Arthur Fan.

Read Full Post »

岐黄传西洋 风雨卅五年
美国中医学会及纽约州执照医师公会欢聚


【5月4日讯】(记者朱江报导)岐黄传西洋,风雨卅五年,从1972年尼克松总统访华时媒体对针刺麻醉的报导在美国带来热潮,历经不为保守传统西医学会所认可接受,到纽约州针灸立法通过,历经三十五年风风雨雨。美国中医学会以及纽约州执照医师公会于4月29日相聚庆生,近二百位医师同仁参加了晚会。前来的嘉宾还有前纽约州的副州长 Mary Anne Krupsak,国会议员莫里斯.辛其办公室主任苏珊娜.赫尔女士,州众议院议长谢尔顿.高登办公室代表,华策会执行主任王碚,三州针灸大学创校主任马克.西姆主任及顾雅明,孟昭文等社区代表。多位相关中医及针灸学会代表及医生们应邀参加,凸现该会庆典主题:回顾总结,珍视彼此,团结互动,开创未来。

该会向二十四位针灸界和中医前辈颁发荣誉证书。美国中医学会AATCM会长金鸣在致辞中表示,“中医针灸之所以能在美国的土地上生根、开花、结果,除了中医针灸界的先驱者的辛苦开创和努力奋斗,还要归功于美国这个民族的宽厚、制度的包容以及许许多多在历史上帮助、推动过中医针灸这个行业发展的政府官员、律师、病人、媒体、教育家,甚至是以此为业的商人。许多因素促成了她的发展和壮大,但最根本的原因是她至今还未能被代替的行之有效的临床价值。”

该会发刊的《纽约中医人》以翔实的资料记载了“岐黄传西洋,风雨卅五年”在纽约的历史。其中有曹维鸣中医师撰文“浮光掠影”,描写1971至1972年间的纽约中医界,“纽约风起云涌的针灸新潮,几乎所有的中医诊所,但能实施针灸治疗,其门庭真是车水马龙,席不暇暖…孰知好景不长,针灸这个在美国被视为非正统医疗的方法,自不为保守传统的西医学会所认可接受。引来西医界祭出法律,规定无医师执照者不得向病人提供医疗服务。”“继 1972年纽约州关闭了所有诊所之后,不少中医师或因生计,或因避祸,都已铺被就道,远赴他乡,留在纽约的仅剩有几十位。”风雪交加中的中医师们,只能奔向华策会CPC寻求支援,得到了王碚先生的鼎力相助。

《纽约中医人》记录了1973年初,纽约州的副州长 Mary Anne Krupsak扭伤了腰,屡治不效,经丁景源中医师以针灸术治疗,腰痛痊愈,纽约州参议员、纽约州教育委员会主席James Donovan得了坐骨神经痛,也请丁景源医师针治,数次即愈。他们在之后对中医针灸给予了大力支持。1990年5月、6月,立名为572D字编号针灸新法案在参议院、众议院顺利通过,当年7月,在纽约州长科莫的签字下正式生效,此案使纽约州得以成立起独立于西医之外的针灸委员会,规定了颁发针灸执照必须经过考试,是纽约针灸业在合法基础上,继续得到认同的里程碑。

当晚,众多中医师与同仁,相互勉励,歌舞抒怀助兴,寄望共兴中医。(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

5/4/2007 11:02:59 PM

本文网址: http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/7/5/4/n1699998.htm

Read Full Post »

A History of Chinese Americans in California:
THE 1850s

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/5views/5views3b.htm

Technology Brought From China

The presence of the ailanthus tree (the so-called “Tree of Heaven”) throughout California has long been a puzzle. The tree is native to China, but not to the United States; yet it grows profusely in those regions where early Chinese immigrants lived. All sorts of fanciful explanations are given — that the Chinese accidently brought the seeds to this country in the cuffs of their trousers (their trousers did not have cuffs), or that the Chinese brought the seeds to this country because they were homesick. The real reason Chinese immigrants brought ailanthus seeds to this country is that the trees are thought to contain an herbal remedy beneficial for arthritis. [32] The Chinese “wedding plant” was also brought to this country as an herbal remedy, but is less easily recognized.

Herbal medicine fulfilled an important health need in the nineteenth century for both Chinese and non-Chinese alike. Western medicine had not yet developed wonder drugs, anaesthetics, vaccinations, or sophisticated surgical techniques. Patent medicines were widely used, and their contents were not regulated by any agency of the government. Drastic measures, such as bleeding, were sometimes resorted to. On the other hand, Chinese herbal remedies had one to two thousand years of use be hind them. In fact, some so-called “wonder drugs” are actually synthesized forms of various herbs. Even today, some medically trained Chinese Americans prefer some herbs to their synthesized forms because the natural herbs have no side effects. [33,Interview with Dr. Herbert Yee (1978)]

One of the ancient building techniques brought from China was construction using rammed earth. While adobe and rammed earth are of ten associated with Spanish and Mexican cultures, rammed earth was a construction technique in use in China as early as 1500 B.C. This technique involves packing mud between wooden forms and hammering it until it becomes as hard as stone. It is an inexpensive building technique, but it is vulnerable to rains and dampness. When it is used in South China, where the weather is often damp, buildings are faced with stone for added protection. [34]

Read Full Post »

How Los Angeles Covered Up the Massacre of 17 Chinese
By John Johnson Jr. Thursday, Mar 10 2011. ( Original  article at

The greatest unsolved murders in Los Angeles’ history — bloodier than the Black Dahlia, more coldly vicious than the hit on Bugsy Siegel — occurred on a cool fall night in 1871. Seventeen Chinese men and boys, including a popular doctor, were hanged by an angry mob near what is now Union Station, an act so savage that it bumped the Great Chicago Fire off the front page of The New York Times.

Corpses of the Chinese victims

Corpses of the Chinese victims
Los Angeles at the time of the Chinese massacre

Los Angeles at the time of the Chinese massacre

Eight men eventually were convicted, but the verdicts were thrown out almost immediately for a bizarre technical oversight by the prosecution. Unbelievably for a crime that occurred in full view of hundreds of people, no one was ever again prosecuted.

The truth about the Chinese Massacre remained buried for 140 years, until writerJohn Johnson Jr. took up the hunt. Johnson spent more than a year examining every piece of evidence, including documents long thought to have been lost to history.

Aided by newly discovered records at theHuntington Library, Johnson found that the men convicted of the killings were in fact guilty. Little surprise there.

But Johnson found something astonishing — and sinister. The bloodlust unleashed that October night was allowed to unfold (if not also set in motion) by some of the city’s leading citizens, men so powerful they could arrange to have the convictions fall apart and the reasons for the massacre covered up.

What emerged from Johnson’s research is a portrait of a town engaged in a death struggle against its own worst nature. Come with us on a journey into the liar’s den of our Los Angeles ancestors.

P olice officer Jesus Bilderrain was settling into his drink at Higby’s saloon on the evening of Oct. 24, 1871, when he heard gunfire.

Bilderrain, one of just six cops in rowdy, fast-growing Los Angeles, jumped on his horse and galloped hard for Calle de los Negroes, or Negro Alley.

The officer didn’t need great detecting skills to guess that the trouble came from the Alley, a narrow lane fronted by crumbling adobes left over from the city’s earliest days. Named for the dark-skinned Spaniards who owned property there, Negro Alley for two decades had been the most dangerous piece of topography in the United States. Its gambling houses and flesh markets were home to gamblers and quick-draw artists, men like the princely Jack Powers, the bloodthirsty Cherokee Bob and the notorious man-killer Crooked Nose Smith.

Of 44 homicides that occurred in Los Angeles in one 15-month period — the highest murder rate ever recorded in the United States — a good portion took place in the Alley.

Bilderrain arrived to find a man named Ah Choy lying on the ground, blood spurting from a gunshot wound to his neck. Spotting a group of fleeing Chinese men, Bilderrain chased them into a large L-shaped adobe, the Coronel Building, a crowded warren of shops and tiny apartments that housed the core of the Chinese community.

According to the first version of the story Bilderrain told (before revising it several times in the months that followed), he courageously dashed into the building and was immediately shot. He came back through the doorway, minus his gun and with a bullet in his shoulder.

Falling to his knees, the officer blew his whistle to raise the alarm.

Responding, a man named Robert Thompson ran to the door of the Coronel Building. Thompson was not a cop. In fact, he had been the proprietor of one of the town’s most notorious saloons, the Blue Wing. But in frontier Los Angeles, citizens were used to taking the law into their own hands. In the previous two decades, 35 people were lynched by Vigilance committees in Los Angeles.

As Thompson approached the door, a sometime cop named Adolfo Celis called out that the Chinese were armed.

“I’ll look out after that,” Thompson replied. Sticking his weapon inside the door, he fired blindly into the darkened interior.

He then pulled open the door to go inside and took a bullet in the chest. “I am killed,” he is supposed to have muttered as he turned back toward the street and collapsed. He died an hour later.

Incensed by Thompson’s mortal wounds, a mob estimated at 500 — nearly a tenth of the entire population of Los Angeles — gathered in the Alley to lay siege to the Chinese.

At first, the mob was held at bay by gunfire coming from inside the Coronel. Eventually, the mobsters hatched a new plan. Climbing onto the roof, they used axes to hack holes in the tar covering. Then they sprayed shotgun and rifle fire into the rooms below. By the time the mob had battered open a second door with a large rock, the Chinese had all but given up.

What came next was an orgy of violence shocking even by the decadent standards of the city of Los Angeles.

In the dim gaslight of recently installed street lamps, armed bands of men dragged cringing Chinese to gallows hastily erected downtown. Bodies soon were swinging from two upturned wagons on Commercial Street, as well as the crossbar of the Tomlinson Corral, a popular lynching spot that just the previous year had been used to string up a Frenchman named Miguel Lachenais.

Lynch men also used the porch roof of John Goller‘s wagon shop at Los Angeles and Commercial, a block from the south entrance to the Alley.

Goller was a model citizen, a former city councilman, respectful husband and dutiful father. He objected bitterly as the Chinese were hoisted outside his windows. There are small children inside, he protested.

Negro Alley, where the massacre began

Negro Alley, where the massacre began

“You dry up, you son of a bitch,” growled a teamster as he leveled a rifle at Goller.

As the Chinese were hauled up, a man on the porch roof danced a jig and gave voice to the resentment many Americans felt over the Chinese willingness to work for low wages. “Come on, boys, patronize home trade,” the man sang out.

The bloodlust was not only in the men. A woman who ran a boardinghouse across the street from Goller’s shop volunteered clothesline to be cut up for nooses.

“Hang them,” she screamed.

A boy came running from a dry goods shop. “Here’s a rope,” he called helpfully.

Of all the Chinese in Los Angeles, Dr. Gene Tong(Chee Long Tong) was probably the most eminent and beloved among both his countrymen and Americans. He could have made much more money hanging his shingle in the American part of town. But Tong stayed in the Alley, dispensing both traditional and modern cures from a small shop in the decrepit Coronel Building.

As Tong was dragged along the street, he tried to strike a bargain with his captors. He could pay a ransom, he said. He had $3,000 in gold in his shop. He had a diamond wedding ring. They could have it all.

Instead of negotiating, one of his captors shot him in the mouth to silence him. Then they hanged him, first cutting off his finger to steal the ring.

The next morning, the citizens of Los Angeles filed past the town’s jail building to view the bodies of the dead laid out in double rows. There were 17. It was the largest mass lynching in American history.

When word of the massacre reached the outside world, the reaction was universal horror. In the East, citizens asked what sorts of ghouls had taken up residence on the West Coast. Turning its gaze from heathen lands, the Methodist Conference started raising funds for missionary work in Los Angeles.

Frontier apologists blamed the massacre on the “dregs” of California society, an assortment of thugs and highwaymen who slouched into town every fall from the mines in the north and the lawless Mexican territory to the south.

“American hoodlum and Mexican greaser, Irish tramp and French communist all joined to murder and dispatch the foe,” wrote poet and historian A.J. Wilson.

The truth was different. While the looting and murder were carried out mostly by hoodlums, the deeds required the tacit approval and occasional intervention of the town’s elite. What’s more, the vast majority of those responsible could not have escaped punishment without a legal cover-up.

To begin with, the Massacre was not spontaneous. Events had been building toward violence among Chinese factions in Negro Alley for several days — and tensions between Chinese and Angelenos also were on the rise.

The cause of the shooting of Choy, whom Bilderrain had seen lying in the street, was the kidnapping by a Chinese company of a woman belonging to a rival Chinese company. These companies were a kind of club or gang that offered support and structure to the Chinese in America.

The kidnapped woman was a striking, moonfaced beauty named Yut Ho. Evidence only recently brought to light by historian Scott Zesch indicates she was a properly married woman who was kidnapped by a company to be sold into marriage.

That company was led by a master manipulator named Yo Hing, whose ability to curry favor with the white power structure was second to none in L.A. One businessman who knew him better than most called him a “guttersnipe Talleyrand.”

The lovely Yut Ho belonged to a rival company, one led by a shopkeeper named Sam Yuen.

Determined to restore the young woman to her husband, Yuen imported from San Francisco several tong warriors, basically hit men.

Choy was one of the hit men, which was understandable, given that Yut Ho was his sister.

After disembarking from the steamship in San Pedro and making the kidney-jarring stagecoach ride to Los Angeles, Choy lost little time tracking down Yo Hing. Choy spotted Hing in Negro Alley on Oct. 23 and fired several shots at him.

Hing escaped injury and he swore out a warrant against Choy, who was promptly arrested.

As testament to Hing’s influence with whites, Choy’s bail was set at a staggering $2,000 — an amount far more than that for men accused of murder.

When Yuen showed up to post bail for his man, Hing’s attorney was stunned. The attorney sputtered that Yuen could not possibly have that much money. The Chinese were known to be thrifty, but that amount of money was supposed to be beyond their reach.

A policeman accompanied Yuen to his shop in the Coronel Building, where he verified that Yuen had the bail money, and a lot more, hidden in a trunk.

Soon, rumor of Yuen’s unexpected wealth was circulating through the city’s imbibing establishments, of which there was no shortage. Of 285 businesses in town, 110 dispensed liquor.

The Chinese were already the objects of both fear and revulsion in L.A.: fear because they were seen as almost superhuman in their ability to work long hours for a pittance, revulsion because their religion and culture were alien.

Popular books at the time suggested that the Chinese streaming into California by the thousands to search for gold eventually would take over California and elect a silk-clad Mandarin as governor.

Hatred was so strong that during the Civil War California’s Legislature passed a law that forbade any Chinese from testifying against a white man. The law gave whites immunity — an invitation to violence that historian Paul De Falla says the people of Los Angeles took up with “a glint and a glee” the night of the massacre.

Against that backdrop, it’s easy to imagine the reaction to the revelation that a Chinese company possessed a small fortune, protected only by a locked trunk.

Indeed, several pieces of evidence strongly suggest that Bilderrain went to Negro Alley that evening not to investigate gunshots but to rob Sam Yuen.

For one thing, Bilderrain had a reputation for dishonesty and larceny. Several court cases were filed against him in the years before and after the massacre, accusing him of stealing valuable roosters for use in his cockfighting operation.

Along with his brother Ygnacio, Bilderrain was an inveterate gambler. For years, he and his brother controlled and manipulated the Latino voting bloc in Los Angeles on behalf of Democratic candidates who, ironically, opposed racial equality. On Election Day, it was a common sight to see Jesus Bilderrain in a white duster stuffing bills into voters’ pockets in downtown Los Angeles.

Then there is Bilderrain’s changing story. According to his own account, after he saw Choy wounded in the street, he chased Yuen’s band into the Coronel Building. This made little sense, since Choy was working for Yuen’s gang.

Instead, the officer should have sought out Hing’s gang.

Why didn’t he? Because he likely was working for Hing.

It was well known in town that the Chinese companies paid off the local police for favors. As Hing said about L.A. law enforcement, according to newspaper accounts of a later court hearing, “Police likee money.”

The chief “favor” rendered by the police was the retrieval of escaped Chinese prostitutes. The women were little more than slaves to the companies, yet whenever a prostitute tried to escape her awful confinement, all her owner had to do was go to court and swear out a warrant accusing her of theft. Then, knowing they would earn a fat reward, the police would spring into action, tracking the woman to Santa Barbara, San Diego or elsewhere, and restore her to her tormentors. While police were off on these errands, they left the city unguarded.

This system of payoffs inevitably led to police officers being openly allied with one Chinese company or another.

The likelihood that Bilderrain was doing Hing’s bidding is apparent in his comments after the riot. The officer insisted that he had seen Yuen shoot bar owner Robert Thompson, a remarkable feat given that Bilderrain was lying wounded in the street when Thompson was shot by someone in the dark interior of the building.

Horace Bell, a lawyer and early chronicler of Los Angeles, wrote years later that he believed Bilderrain and Thompson went to Yuen’s store that afternoon for no other purpose than to steal his gold.

Bell’s account was dismissed by historians because he was known to stir a good deal of drink into his tales of early Los Angeles. But in this case there is plenty of independent evidence of Bilderrain’s duplicity.

In the days after the massacre, Hing and Yuen, both of whom survived, gave their versions of events to the Los Angeles Daily Star, blaming each other for the outbreak. But Yuen provided a key piece of evidence in his account, saying his men opened fire on Bilderrain because he came for them in the company of Hing, his enemy.

There was no way, in the highly charged aftermath of the riot, that Yuen could openly accuse a police officer of robbery or of starting the massacre. He could, however, hint at it while blaming Hing for being the instigator of both the kidnapping and the riot.

Further evidence of the Chinese view was offered later, when Dr. Gene Tong’s widow sued Hing, accusing him of starting the violence.

Finally, there was a monumental reversal by Bilderrain that casts doubt on his original explanation for the start of the massacre. He and his friends gave several accounts of what he saw that night, sometimes naming Yuen and sometimes not.

But by the time Yuen filed suit against the city of Los Angeles to recover his lost gold, Bilderrain had come around 180 degrees. He testified for Yuen, claiming he had never seen the gang leader on the night of the massacre.

However the riot started, one of the greatest unanswered questions is how it was allowed to continue. A review of news accounts in the days following the massacre showed that the authorities were strangely, and criminally, uninvolved.

L.A.’s top cop, Marshal Francis Baker, was new to the job. Baker testified before the coroner’s inquest that he arrived at the scene just as Thompson was shot. He deputized an ad hoc collection of men to surround the Coronel Building.

His purpose, he said, was to prevent the escape of those involved in the shooting. But it goes without saying that recruiting guards from among the rabble who frequented the Alley was a questionable decision.

Baker’s next action was even stranger. With gunfire ringing out behind him, he went home to bed, leaving the mob in charge.

Police did little, as was evident by the actions of the two officers with probably the most experience, Emil Harris and George Gard. Both had proved their bravery during the Mexican bandit wars. Harris helped capture the dashing Tiburcio Vasquez, and the Starsaid he and Gard were “hard to beat on either a warm or cold trail.”

But on this night, these brave officers loitered near hay scales at the corner of Los Angeles and Arcadia streets, a half-block from the trouble. Harris took custody of one fleeing Chinese man. But when he was surrounded and the victim wrenched from him by the mob, Harris simply returned to his post, later saying he was unaware that any Chinese people had been hanged.

Harris and Gard said they eventually worked their way to Yuen’s store, where they stood guard for much of the night. Even this was a wasted effort, because the mob had already looted the store and Yuen’s trunk.

As they stood their pointless vigil, it is likely they had one thing on their minds: reward. Both men were allied with Yuen. Just days before the riot, one newspaper reported they had received nice presents from him.

Historians have argued that no one could expect poorly trained police to stand up to an armed mob of hundreds. It’s more likely, however, that police, fatally compromised by their secret deals with Chinese companies and accustomed to letting vigilantes do their deeds, simply stood aside and let the mob do its customary work.

The argument that police were powerless that night was put to the lie by Robert Widney, a former schoolteacher who helped found the University of Southern California. His technique, he wrote years later in papers preserved at the Huntington Library, was to sidle up to a mobster, yank him by the collar, shove the barrel of his pistol into the man’s throat and whisper: “Get out or I’ll kill you.” Widney managed to save four or five Chinese people.

As the mob did its vile work, a crowd of observers gathered along the route of execution to watch. According to later accounts, some of the city’s leading citizens were seen cheering on the killers.

Among them was H.M. Mitchell, a reporter for the Star. A future leader in Democratic party politics, Mitchell would serve a term as sheriff before marrying into the wealthy Glassell family and becoming a gentleman farmer and collector of Western antiquities.

A member of the crowd heard Mitchell yelling, “Hang him.”

Harris Newmark, one of the most respected members of the business community, wrote years later that he heard a shot as he left work that night. Walking over to Los Angeles Street, he learned that Thompson had been killed.

Newmark said he went home to supper “expecting no further trouble.”

The statement strains belief. By the time the mob learned Thompson had died, its blood was up. Given L.A.’s record of vigilantism, it didn’t require much imagination to foresee what would come next.

The mood of the city, from the best to the worst, was that it was time for the Chinese to learn their lesson. As one survivor of the massacre said, according to news accounts: “When Melican man gettee mad, he damned fool. [He] killee good Chinaman allee same bad Chinaman.”

The massacre finally was brought to an end by Sheriff James Burns, a colorful figure known as “Daddy” to the gamblers and whores. He pleaded that if just 25 volunteers from the crowd of onlookers stood with him, he could stop the mob. He soon was hoisted on the shoulders of the crowd and carried into the alley — and the murderers faded into the night.

By 11 p.m., the bars were going great guns as the mob slaked its thirst. At J.H. Weldon‘s, a man with blood on his hands and shirt bellied up to the bar with a boast: “Well, I am satisfied now. I have killed three Chinamen.”

In the aftermath of the massacre, expressions of horror and disgust rained down on the city from around the world.

It was a public relations disaster for a town that was desperate to attract a rail link that was expected to, and did, bring thousands of Anglos to Southern California to sweep away what was left of the Spanish Californio culture.

City fathers believed nothing must discourage those passengers from coming. So they had very good reason to downplay the massacre as a spontaneous outbreak of rage against a hated minority.

They also needed to put the incident behind them as quickly as possible, no small feat for a city that had officially shrugged off vigilante lynchings in the past. Indeed, no lynchers had ever been prosecuted.

In fact, after the hanging of the Frenchman Lachenais the previous year, not only did the grand jury fail to indict anyone, but the lynch men also boldly published a rebuke to the authorities by way of one of the most arrogant editorials ever to run in an American newspaper.

“It is to be hoped,” said the column in theStar, “that the ‘hint’ given by the people yesterday will be sufficient ammunition to cause the weak ‘arm of the law’ to recover its former strength, and render it unnecessary for the people, from whom all the power of the law proceeds, to ever again re-take that ‘law into their own hands.’ ”

The fact that Los Angeles lynch men included influential citizens was shown by the access they were given to one of the city’s finest and newest structures, Teutonia Hall, in which to deliberate Lachenais’ fate. Afterward, they marched through downtown in the light of day before dragging the accused to his fate.

At first, it seemed the killers of the Chinese would benefit from a similar failure of civic will. At the coroner’s inquest, one witness after another, including police, was somehow unable to recognize any of the mob members.

Slowly, however, a few citizens recovered their memories. Various merchants were named at the coroner’s inquest as having aided the mob in one way or another, from a clothing store owner to a farmer, a silk grower, a butcher, a blacksmith, a saloon owner and a carpenter.

The erstwhile cop Celis, who had warned Thompson before he was shot dead, and a constable named Richard Kerren were fingered as men who shot at the Chinese. City Councilman George Fall was identified as having attacked Hing with a plank of wood.

The grand jury finally issued indictments accusing two dozen men of murder. But not one prominent person was on the list — not Fall, not Mitchell, not Harris or Gard. While awaiting trial, two of the accused, Louis “Fatty” Mendell and L.F. “Curly” Crenshaw, received visits in jail from Harris and Gard.

Inexplicably, the penniless rabble managed to engage one of the most distinguished and successful members of the bar to defend them. Edward J.C. Kewen‘s legendary oratorical gifts were almost certainly beyond the financial reach of the defendants. His ability to sway listeners was such that the Lincoln administration imprisoned him for several months during the Civil War for making secessionist speeches around the West.

The prosecution was led by District Attorney Cameron Erskine Thom, the grandson of a Scottish warrior and son of a captain in the War of 1812 who had been on friendly terms with Thomas Jefferson.

Surely Thom had the combination of character and courage to stand up to any forces in town that would excuse the rioters.

But other factors apparently were at work. Like the vast majority of Angelenos, Thom was openly sympathetic to the Southern cause in the Civil War. (He had even given up his law practice in 1862 to volunteer for the Confederacy. He was wounded at Gettysburg.)

This comity of feeling for the Southern cause bound the rioters and their accusers in the same way that going to the same college or belonging to the same club binds people, Doyce Nunis, former head of the history department at USC and an expert on the massacre, said in an interview with the Weekly before his death last month.

If good citizens like Thom and Kewen did not sanction lynching, they almost certainly shared the rioters’ attitude toward the Chinese as a threat to the future of California as a homeland for transplanted WASPS.

With all this as a backdrop, Los Angeles’ first Trial of the Century began in March 1872.

Showing just how deeply the vigilante movement had penetrated the city, one prospective juror after another was disqualified because he belonged to a Vigilance committee.

Presiding over the trial was Robert Widney, the hero of the massacre, who acted to save Chinese people when police would not. But according to historian De Falla, Widney wasn’t even a member of the bar, and wouldn’t be for some months.

If that weren’t enough reason to question his fitness, he should have disqualified himself because he had personally witnessed the violence that night. How could he sit in judgment and fairly rule on motions submitted by the defense when he knew who was guilty?

The first to stand trial was Crenshaw. A drifter who had run away from home in Nevada the previous year, Curly was 22 but looked much younger. He apparently gave in to the temptations of Negro Alley with a lusty enthusiasm. “His favorite resort,” according to theLos Angeles Daily News, “was the rendezvous of lewd women, pickpockets and cutthroats.”

In short order, he was convicted. Not of murder, the obvious crime, but of manslaughter.

How could that be? Witnesses said Curly had fired down on Chinese from atop the Coronel Building.

But Curly had a powerful ally. Policeman Gard — who did little to stop the lynching — testified that he gave his rifle to Curly to hold while he put out a fire on the roof. When he got it back, he said, the gun contained the same number of bullets.

Suddenly, Gard’s and Harris’ jailhouse visit made sense.

The trials of the next nine defendants were combined. This is usually a dangerous tactic, since jurors tend to blame all for the worst acts of the few. But Kewen had an ace up his sleeve.

Seven of the nine were convicted but, again, of manslaughter. Widney imposed sentences ranging from two to six years, light terms given the crime.

Kewen pulled out his ace not long after the guilty boarded ship for San Quentin. He filed papers with the Supreme Court of California, alleging that the convictions were improper because the district attorney committed a fatal legal error.

Prosecutor Thom had correctly charged the defendants with murdering the beloved Dr. Tong. But Thom had failed to introduce evidence that Tong had been killed.

The court agreed and the convictions were set aside.

Thom’s mistake was the error of a rookie, not of a veteran prosecutor. What’s more, Thom never attempted to retry the defendants.

He also never brought to trial the majority of those accused by the grand jury. After a time, the indictments themselves were mislaid, so that no future trials could be held.

Just like that, L.A. had disposed of its messy public relations problem.

Local newspapers did not even mention the lynching in their year-end analysis of the major events of the previous 12 months.

Within five years, the arrival of the transcontinental railroad made the trip West fast and safe, and the great immigration of church builders, book clubbers and ladies who lunch followed. Los Angeles became a modern city, and many of the men who lived through the evil times grew rich.

The massacre did have one salutary effect, however: It brought an end to the rule of the rope in Los Angeles. The Chinese were the last to be lynched in L.A.

Historian Nunis was convinced that the whole truth about the massacre never was told. “It’s very hard to prove that the best citizens were involved, although I believe it’s true,” he told the Weekly.

“You’ve got to look at what motivated the killers,” he added. “The economy was on the decline with the end of the Civil War. There was social dislocation. Blacks were moving in. The Chinese were very successful. All these things caused resentment.”

Far from being the result of passions inflamed by alcohol, “I really felt the lynchings were a put-up job,” Nunis said.

And still today, every so often, the rainbow mix of populations in Los Angeles forsake their surfboards, convertibles, Cinco de Mayo celebrations and Martin Luther King Jr. Daymarches and rise in revolt against each other’s accursed presence in this paradise.

The story might end there, were it not for strange events that occurred in the following years.

In 1877, a brief appeared in one of the newspapers noting that one Yo Hing had been hacked to death by an assassin bearing, along with a hatchet, “an old grudge.” Somehow, the author failed to note Hing’s connection to the massacre only six years earlier.

Celis, one of only two defendants acquitted in the massacre case, died in a bizarre accident while chasing horse thieves in the San Fernando Valley. According to the account given by Gard, who was riding in a buggy with Celis at the time, a rifle fell out of the wagon and hit a spoke on one of the wheels. Absurd as it sounds, the rifle discharged a bullet that struck Celis square in the chest, Gard said, apparently with a straight face.

As no one else saw the incident, Gard’s word was taken as gospel.

Around the same time, H.M. Mitchell, by then known as Major Mitchell, having left behind his ragged roots as a journalist, went hunting with City Attorney William E. Dunn in the foothills beyond Pasadena. Dunn mistook his friend for a deer, accidentally shooting Mitchell — twice. A single mistaken shot by a skilled hunter seems barely credible. But two shots?

Did the wily Sam Yuen, still burning with rage over never having recovered his gold, have a hand in these events?

Nunis doubted Yuen was that smart. And Yuen could hardly be blamed for another premature death, that of Gard, who after the massacre became a railroad detective and died in a fiery explosion.

If not Yuen, then, who was settling the score?

Maybe it was just bad luck, the kind that for a few decades in the 19th century seemed to find a home in the rough-and-ready town of Los Angeles.

The Anti-Chinese Massacre of 1871 and its Strange Career: The People Killed

Posted: October 25th, 2010

With so many public traces gone, it would seem that final accountings might be frustrated. That might be true of the ones that got away, but not all lists of names have disappeared. The Chinese Los Angelenos who were killed on October 24, 1871 were not nameless. The Los Angeles Daily News printed a record of those whose names were known. For the sake of a fresh look at the October 1871 massacre, and to provide a better accounting for at least eighteen of those killed, here is an inventory. There is Chee Long Tong. He was reputed to be a doctor. Non-Chinese Los Angelenos called him “Gene” Tong. He was shot through the head and hanged. There is Wa Sin Quai, noted as “resident of Negro Alley.” Shot in the abdomen and legs. There is Chang Wan, a resident of Doctor Tong’s house. He was hanged. There was Long Quai. Hanged. There was Joung Burrow who was shot through the head and left wrist. Another with no name, but was guessed later to be Won yu Tuk, hanged, was a cigar manufacturer in life. Wong Chin – hanged, and three cartridges were found in his pocket. There was Tong Wan who was shot, stabbed, and hanged and there was Ah Loo, hanged. Wan Foo was hanged. Day Kee was hanged. Ah Was was hanged. Ah Cut, shot in the abdomen and extremities. He was a liquor manufacturer. There was Lo Hey, hanged; Ah Wen, hanged; and Wing Chee, hanged. There was Fun Yu who was shot in the head and died October 27. And there was an unidentified Chinese male who was hanged and found in the cemetery (most likely it was Wong Tuck).

Victor Jew, The Anti-Chinese Massacre of 1871 and its Strange Career, chapter in William Deverell and Greg Hise, A Companion to Los Angeles (2010), citing P.M. De Falla, Lantern in the Western Sky, Part 2, 42 Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California 161-62 (1960).

Victims of the Chinatown Massacre of 1871 lie dead in the jail yard. Los Angeles Public Library, Security Pacific National Bank Collection.

The City of Los Angeles continues to desecrate the site of the Chinatown Massacre — click here to learn more about The City Project’s law suit to preserve history and green space at Father Serra Park and the site of the Massacre.

http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2011/05/04/1353455.html

您的位置: 文学城首页 » 滚动新闻 » 1871年洛杉矶17华人遇害真相:参与者蹊跷死亡(图)

1871年洛杉矶17华人遇害真相:参与者蹊跷死亡(图)

文章来源: 青年参考 于 2011-05-04 08:20:24 – 新闻取自各大新闻媒体,新闻内容并不代表本网立场!
打印本新闻(被阅读 2 次)

1871年洛杉矶17华人遇害真相:参与者蹊跷死亡(图) 青年参考

[adinfo]

在1871年洛杉矶骚乱中被绞死的华人

洛杉矶老唐人街,由“黑人巷”扩建而来。

  1871年10月24日,洛杉矶市发生了一起骇人听闻的骚乱,17名华人在骚乱中被白人歹徒处死,其中包括一个孩子。事后,在洛杉矶市官员的庇护下,参与骚乱、屠杀的凶手均逃过了惩罚。

是什么样的仇恨,让这些歹徒连小孩也不放过?在屠杀发生近140年后,美国史学家约翰·约翰逊,根据多方搜集的资料,还原了那段历史。

  “黑人巷”传来枪声

1871年10月24日傍晚,洛杉矶市仅有的6名警察之一耶稣·贝尔德里安刚在经常光顾的“海碧”酒吧坐下来,还没开始喝酒,便听到外面传来一阵枪响。

贝尔德里安立即冲出酒吧,上马扬鞭,直奔“黑人巷”——枪声是从那里传来的。

那时的洛杉矶市,虽然人口比1850年刚建市时的1600多人增长了好几倍,但也只有五六千人,城市规模只相当于今天的一个小镇,因此每天在市区巡逻的贝尔德里安闭着眼睛也能听出枪声是从哪里传来的。

当时的“黑人巷”,是一条两边立有低矮土坯房的数百米的狭窄巷子,因深色皮肤的西班牙殖民者最先在此定居而得名,后来逐渐成为洛杉矶市赌博与皮肉生意的集中地,许多亡命之徒经常到此地寻求刺激、释放欲望,因此这里的犯罪率居高不下。

赶到“黑人巷”后,贝尔德里安看到一个名叫阿乔(本文华人的名字均为音译)的华人躺在地上,血从脖子上汩汩涌出。他中枪了。

在现场还有一伙华人。见警察来了,这些人一哄而散,躲进附近一座“L”型的土坯房子里。

此前一年(即1870年)的人口普查结果显示,洛杉矶市共有172名华人,绝大部分居住在“黑人巷”,以做苦力、开小商店或耕种为生。这座“L”型的土坯房,便是一些华人开店、居住的所在。

接下来发生的事情,按照贝尔德里安最初的说法(他后来多次更改说法),他“勇敢地冲入华人的屋子里,却被一枪击中肩膀,不得不退了出来,枪也丢了”。

  500名白人歹徒围攻华人

受伤后的贝尔德里安马上伏在地上,吹哨子发出警报。很快,一个名叫罗伯特·汤普森的人率先赶到。汤普森并非警察,他是洛杉矶“蓝翼”酒吧的老板,也是洛杉矶市私人自卫组织“警戒委员会”的成员(武装自卫在蛮荒西部时期比较普遍)。

汤普森接近土坯房房门时,另一名刚赶到的警察阿道夫·赛里斯在他身后大喊:“中国人手里有武器。”

“我小心点儿就是了!”汤普森一边回答,一边把枪伸进门缝里,胡乱朝里面开了几枪后,他一脚把门踢开,就往里闯,结果刚进屋胸口就挨了一枪。

“我完了!”汤普森咕哝了一声,他转过身来,一头栽倒在地上,一小时后不治身亡。汤普森死亡的消息传开后,约有500名白人聚集到“黑人巷”,对土坯房里的华人进行围攻。华人抵抗了一阵后,只能选择投降。

接下来是对华人的大屠杀,场面令人触目惊心:

在街道两旁刚安装不久的煤气灯昏暗的灯光下,手持武器的白人押着被绑成一串的华人,走向临时竖起的绞刑架。一些商店门廊的横梁也被当作绞刑架。很快,17具华人的尸体便摇荡在半空中,其中一具尸体没穿裤子,还有一个是十几岁的孩子。

曾任市议会议员的约翰·格勒反对以残忍手段对待华人,但他的强烈抗议被一名牛仔喝止:“闭嘴,你个狗娘养的!”然后把枪对准了他。

不光成年男子,白人妇女和小孩也参与了对华人的屠杀。一名志愿绑制绞刑架套索的女子在行刑时高喊:“绞死他们!”还有一个小孩也从纺织品店里拿来绳索,“绳子来了!”他喊道。

在被处死的华人中,有一名医术精湛的童姓中医大夫。童大夫对抓捕他的人说,他有价值3000美元的金子,还有一枚钻戒,都放在药店里,如果放了他,他愿把这些财物全部奉上。可歹徒们根本不愿与他讨价还价,反而朝他的嘴里开了一枪,打死后又把他的尸体悬挂在绞刑架上,戴金戒指的手指也被人割了下来。

杀戮之前,“黑人巷”华人的店铺已被洗劫一空。

  警察觊觎华人店主钱财?

至于骚乱的缘起,还得从一个名叫霍玉的华人女子说起。霍玉容貌出众,有一张讨人喜欢的圆脸蛋。她当时已经成家,却被盘踞在“黑人巷”的一个华人帮派拐卖,这个帮派的头领名叫于兴。在洛杉矶,于兴很吃得开,当地上至政府官员,下至贩夫走卒,他均能说得上话。

霍玉的来历也不简单,她是洛杉矶另一个华人帮派的家属,该帮派的头领是一个商店店主,姓袁。

袁店主听说于兴绑架了霍玉,就从旧金山找来几名杀手,准备把霍玉救回来,其中一名杀手就是被击中脖子的阿乔——霍玉的弟弟。

1871年10月23日傍晚,阿乔找到了于兴,开枪将后者击伤,随后,他被警察逮捕。

因为于兴事先与警官进行了“沟通”,阿乔的保释金被定为高不可攀的2000美元,要知道,1869年开建太平洋铁路时,一名白人筑路工的月工资才45美元。

可出乎于兴的意料,袁店主表示,他可以缴纳2000美元,保释阿乔。

一名警察陪同袁店主,到他的店里拿钱。回来后便有消息传出:袁店主还有很多钱,都藏在他店铺的箱子里。

实际上,袁店主当时是洛杉矶市主要的酒水经销商,加上华人省吃俭用的美德,他攒下这些钱并不奇怪。但在白人眼里,华人“每天光知道干活,拿低薪也不抱怨”,抢走了他们的工作机会。对华人的歧视也日甚一日,美国内战时,加州的立法机构甚至通过一项法律,禁止华人指控白人,这意味着白人可以对华人任意施加伤害。在这样的背景下,不难想象白人得知袁店主有“大量钱财”后的反应。洛杉矶一名叫贺瑞斯·贝尔的律师在事发几年后写道:“贝尔德里安听到枪声后赶到黑人巷,并非为了维持治安,而是他事先已与于兴串通好了,在于兴向阿乔开枪报复之后,他再趁乱到袁店主的店里把钱偷走。”

  好心市民出手救华人

虽然很多史学家认为贝尔的说法并不可信,但于兴靠向贝尔德里安“进贡”,经营赌场和妓院则是不争的事实。事后,袁店主也向《洛杉矶每日星报》透露,贝尔德里安根本不是前来维持治安的,他和于兴的人一起来找他们的“麻烦”,打伤了阿乔,他们不得不开枪还击。

有意思的是,贝尔德里安此后多次改变说法,一会儿说在事发现场见到了袁店主,一会儿又说没见到他,当袁店主提出诉讼,要求参与暴乱的人归还他的金子时,贝尔德里安坚定地声称,他在事发当晚“绝对没见到”袁店主。

抛开与当地华人帮派的利益勾结不谈,警察在骚乱发生时的失职则是明显的。

洛杉矶市警局局长马歇尔·贝克尔在事发时曾召集人包围了“L”型土坯房,在接受质询时,贝克尔声称他此举是为了“防止杀害汤普森的凶手逃走”。不过,当围攻土坯房的枪声响起后,贝克尔却大摇大摆地回了家,因为他“要休息”。

局长对骚乱持如此态度,手下人更不消说。事发时,另有两名警员——埃米尔·哈里斯和乔治·嘉德正在离“黑人巷”半条街的地方闲逛。听到贝尔德里安的哨子响后,两人忙往“黑人巷”赶,半路上哈里斯控制住一名逃命的华人,但随后又把他交给了冲上来的白人暴徒。

两名警察没有出面制止骚乱,反而站在袁店主已被洗劫一空的店外进行“警戒”,真实用意是期望袁店主事后能“表示表示”。就在骚乱前几天,一份报纸指出,两人收了袁店主“精美的礼物”。

也有人认为,要求两名警察制止数百人的骚乱有点勉为其难,但再看看一位名叫罗伯特·韦德尼的退休教师的义举吧。韦德尼当时开了一家商店,事发时,5名华人躲入他店中,暴徒尾随而至。韦德尼趁一名暴徒不备,冲上去扭住暴徒持枪的手并对准其咽喉,小声说:“滚出去,否则我杀了你。”暴徒退出了他的商店,5名华人得救了。

  骚乱参与者接连蹊跷死亡

骚乱最终在洛杉矶司法长官詹姆斯·伯恩斯的制止下停止了。伯恩斯被开赌馆和妓院的人尊称为“老爹”,他向实在看不过眼的围观者说,只消有25个人听他指挥,他就能制止骚乱。

很快,伯恩斯被25个人簇拥着,来到“黑人巷”。果不其然,他的出现平息了骚乱。

24日深夜11点多,那些在骚乱中抢得钱财的暴徒纷纷到酒吧畅饮“庆功”。一个衣服上沾有血迹的家伙在J.H.威尔东酒吧里醉醺醺地说:“我杀了3个中国人,心满意足。”

这场屠杀引起了美国媒体的关注,甚至把同时期发生的芝加哥大火从《纽约时报》头版头条的位置上挤了下去。

东海岸的美国人纷纷指责这一暴行。迫于压力,洛杉矶市的执法机构以“过失杀人罪”判处8名白人暴徒2至6年监禁,但不久就以证据缺乏为由,将他们释放出狱。

洛杉矶市之所以敢冒天下之大不韪,对杀人暴徒从轻发落,是因为当时该市官员正不惜一切代价,说服铁路公司将太平洋铁路修到洛杉矶,以吸引西进的移民。他们担心,此事若太过声张,会让移民对洛杉矶市望而却步。

骚乱发生几年后,又接连发生蹊跷事。

1877年,于兴在街头被人砍死。

告诫汤普森不要进入土坯房的警察阿道夫·赛里斯也死于非命:乘坐马车时,他的枪掉落到地上,车轮碾过后,枪竟然响了,匪夷所思的是,子弹击中了赛里斯的胸部,致使他当场身亡。

赛里斯死后不久,一名曾在围观杀戮时高呼“绞死他们(华人)”的洛杉矶市政府官员H.M.米切尔,在一次打猎时,竟被朋友当作猎物开枪打死,而且中了两枪。

有人说这一切都是袁店主策划的,但随着相关人等的去世,真相或许将永远湮没在历史长河中。( 来源:《青年参考》;作者:章鲁生)

 

Read Full Post »

James Tin Yau So

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tin_Yau_So

Dr. James Tin Yau So, N.D., LAc., (1911–2000) also known as Dr. So, was one of the most influential individuals of the 20th Century in bringing acupuncture to the United States.[citation needed]

Dr. So’s teacher was Tsang Tien Chi who studied under Ching Tan An. He graduated from Dr. Tsang’s College of Scientific Acupuncture inCantonChina, in 1939. During the same year Dr. So opened his medical office in Hong Kong. In 1941 he opened his own school, The Hong Kong College Acupuncture. For the next thirty years, Dr. So established himself as one of the most successful and well-respected acupuncturists throughout Asia.[citation needed]

Several acupuncturists from the National Acupuncture Association (NAA) sought Dr. So’s assistance in 1972.[citation needed] At the time the NAA offered Dr. So a position as acupuncturist at the UCLA Acupuncture Pain Clinic, the only legal acupuncture clinic in California at that time. Dr. So accepted and joined the NAA staff of acupuncturists and the UCLA Acupuncture Pain Clinic in 1973.[1]

In 1974, Dr. So was part of the NAA group that traveled to Massachusetts and opened the first acupuncture clinic in Boston and a second clinic in Worcester. Dr. Steven Rosenblatt and Dr. Gene Bruno assisted Dr. So in the translation of his three books on the points of acupuncture, the techniques acupuncture and treatment of disease by acupuncture. Dr. So, with the help of Dr. Rosenblatt and Dr. Bruno founded the first school of acupuncture in the US in 1974.[citation needed] Dr. So, with the help of his students Arnie Freiman and Steven Breeker registered this school the next year and changed the name to the New England School of Acupuncture (NESA), in 1975.[2] With his approval Dr. Gene Bruno and Dr. Steven Rosenblatt founded a second school in the US, which became the California Acupuncture College, located in West Los Angeles.

Dr. So was posthumously awarded the Acupuncturist of the Year award in 2001 by the American Association of Oriental Medicine at their national conference in Hawaii. In 2007, Dr. So Tin Yau was among the first four acupuncturists to be inscribed on the Founders of the Profession Honor Roll by the American Association of Oriental Medicine.[citation needed]

Read Full Post »

Dr. Miriam Lee, OMD (Lee Chuan Djin)http://tungspoints.com/lineage/

In 1976, Miriam Lee was one of the first people to be licensed as an acupuncturist in the state of  California. In 1974, she was arrested for practicing medicine without a license.

At her trial, her patients filled the courtroom in protest of her arrest, claiming their right to the only medicine that had truly helped them. Within a few days of Dr. Lee’s trial, acupuncture was authorized as an experimental procedure in California. In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown signed the  legislation that finally legalized acupuncture.

The Acupuncture Association of America was founded by Dr. Miriam Lee in July 1980; Dr. Lee continued to lead the organization until her retirement in 1998. The Acupuncture Association of America was created to promote public education about acupuncture, provide continuing education classes for licensed practitioners, to guide and support legislative advocacy, and to promote research in the field of acupuncture.

For nearly a decade, the Acupuncture Association of America supported Art Krause, a California lobbyist whose primary work has been on behalf of acupuncturists. Dr. Lee offered classes in order to raise funds needed to support this legislative work. Mr. Krause, well respected in Sacramento, was able to negotiate agreements with influential politicians. Among the friends of the Acupuncture Association of America and acupuncture were Dr. Bill Filante, Senators Art Torres and Herschel Rosenthal, all instrumental in getting many acupuncture bills made into law. It is because of the monumental efforts of Dr. Miriam Lee, Art Krause and others that California acupuncturists are now licensed, have a very comprehensive scope of practice, primary care physician status, primary insurance coverage and have been able to accept Medi-Cal.

In 1989, the Council of Acupuncture Organizations was formed to unite the profession in the legislative process. This group was composed of nine different acupuncture organizations throughout California, including three Chinese, two Japanese, two Korean and two Caucasian groups. This was the first attempt to bring together these different acupuncture communities. Unfortunately, the group met for only two years, but during that time, the Council of Acupuncture Organizations was able to procure acupuncture coverage through Worker’s Compensation.

Many new acupuncture organizations were formed during the 1990’s, both in California and nationwide. The Acupuncture Association of America, having had a very significant role in the early formation and legalization of California acupuncture, was then able to focus on providing continuing education classes. Dr. Miriam Lee sponsored many well-known practitioners from China to come to her clinic in Palo Alto to teach seminars. These courses covered a variety of topics such as Tung’s Points, herbal formulation, scalp acupuncture, wrist and ankle points, and Traditional Chinese Medicine gynecology and oncology.

Dr. Miriam Lee retired in 1998, and moved to Southern California to be with her family. Dr. Lee passed away June 24th, 2009. Miriam Lee was a pioneering doctor whose tireless work led to the recognition and legalization of the medical practice of acupuncture in California.

新浪全球新聞
全球新聞 > 美國 > 社區新聞 > 正文

加州第一位針灸醫師李傳真博士六月二十四日與世長辭

http://news.sina.com   2009年07月03日 00:09   中國日報

  葬禮將於七月三日下午一時於洛杉磯玫瑰崗Hillside Chapel教堂舉行

(本報訊)加州第一位針灸醫師李傳真(Miriam Lee)博士,不幸於二零零九年六月二十四日於洛杉磯托倫斯家中與世長辭,由於李醫師三十多年前的努力,促成加州針灸醫師合法化,進而影響針灸在全美國的發展與推動。更難能者,李醫師與其學生Susan Johnson、Esthersu等在美國與歐洲極力推展發揮董氏奇穴,使董氏奇穴因而風行全美及歐洲,帶動了美國及歐洲針灸界更大的進步。

李傳真醫師,加州針灸的先驅,是促成加州針灸合法化的醫師,出生於中國,1949離開大陸,來美前曾住在新加坡十七年,當她來到加州時,針灸仍是不合法的,他先是在家靜靜的治療病人,之後她與支持她的西醫共用診室,1974年李傳真因為沒有開業執照而被逮捕,開庭時,她的病人擠滿了法庭,抗議她被拘捕,他們聲明只有針灸能真正的幫助他們,他們有權力接受這種治療。之後在幾天內針灸被州長Ronald Reagan列為合法的試驗性的治療方法。1976年,州長Jerry Brown簽字使針灸在加州正式合法化,這使Miriam Lee成為加州第一位針灸醫師。經過三十多年,今日加州的針灸醫師已到達一萬四千多人。

在七零年代及八零年代早期,她以她老師(有名的董景昌,曾治癒高棉總統之半身不遂)的特殊的董氏奇穴為主進行治療,董氏奇穴被西方人名之為「董氏魔術穴位」,她著有有關的英文著作經Blue Poppy出版,這其中有不少創造與革新,該書在美國及歐洲皆極為暢銷。在她的職業生涯中,當其臨床巔峰時期,每小時看十個病人,每周工作八十小時。九零年代起李醫師與其學生Susan Johnson,Esthersu等在美國與歐洲極力推展發揮董氏奇穴,使董氏奇穴因而風行全美及歐洲,帶動了美國及歐洲針灸界更大的進步。

1980美國針灸學會(Acupuncture Association of America)創立,學會的宗旨在提供針灸醫師再教育,支持針灸立法及推廣針灸研究,李醫師被推為會長直至1998年,李醫師近幾年退休後定居於洛杉磯托倫斯(She died peacefully, in her home in Torrance, CA. with her family around her.)直至去逝。李醫師之葬禮將於七月三日下午一時於洛杉磯玫瑰崗Hillside Chapel教堂舉行,然後葬於玫瑰崗墓園。

  • William Morris
    Message 1 of 4 , 02 Jul, 2009

    Palo Alto acupuncture pioneer, 82, dies

    By Shaun Bishop

    Daily News Staff Writer

    Posted: 06/30/2009 11:02:41 PM PDT
    Updated: 06/30/2009 11:02:46 PM PDT

    Miriam Lee, a prominent acupuncturist who pushed for licensing the practice in California and treated patients for two decades in Palo Alto, died last week. She was 82.

    Lee suffered a severe stroke in recent weeks and died June 24 in Southern California, where she lived after retiring in 1997, said Susan Johnson, a former student and longtime friend.

    Lee’s 1974 arrest in Palo Alto for practicing medicine without a license made her an icon for the movement to allow acupuncture to be legalized in the United States, Johnson said.

    She also had a lifelong desire to learn, traveling across the world to pick up new skills and passing on her knowledge to many of her students.

    “She was an extraordinary practitioner, a one-of-a-kind pioneer in terms of techniques and teaching,” said Johnson, who was an intern under Lee in 1982.

    Born Dec. 8, 1926, in China, Lee studied in her late teenage years to be a midwife. She moved to Singapore in 1953, where she worked as a bank teller until she immigrated to the United States in 1969, Johnson said.

    Lee settled in Palo Alto and worked on an assembly line in a Hewlett-Packard factory, treating co-workers who complained of shoulder or neck pain with acupuncture in her home, Johnson said.

    As word of her in-home acupuncture practice spread, Lee attracted a growing number of patients. But authorities caught wind of her popularity, and in 1974 arrested her for practicing medicine without a license.

    According to Lee’s 1992 book, “Insights of a Senior Acupuncturist,” she was acquitted after supporters came to her defense at a court hearing. Lee then pushed for legislation that eventually established acupuncture licensing in California in 1976.

    She founded an acupuncture practice on Cambridge Avenue, where she treated a variety of illnesses, from thyroid problems to migraine headaches, said Jean Leong, who observed Lee’s treatments as an adolescent while her mother worked as Lee’s assistant.

    Lee started her day early and treated as many as 10 patients every hour using different tables in different rooms, Leong said.

    Throughout her career, Lee studied with acupuncture masters in China, learning new skills that she took back to the United States, including unusual techniques not taught in acupuncture schools, Johnson said.

    In 1997 she retired and moved to the Los Angeles area after suffering her first stroke, Johnson said.

    “I just think Miriam was the pioneer,” Leong said. “If it wasn’t for her, I don’t know if acupuncture would have been introduced to the U.S. — and certainly not to California — at the time it happened.”

    A memorial service for Lee will be held 1 p.m. Friday at Rose Hills Park and Mortuary, 3888 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, Calif.

    for more:

    http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0124/01/4702178_88614597.shtml

    SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2009

    Miriam Lee Tribute Day – FREE acupuncture on December 9, 2009


    Bay Area Community Acupuncture Clinics Honor Pioneer Miriam Lee
    With A Day of Free AcupunctureSeven Community Acupuncture clinics in the greater San Francisco Bay area will offer free acupuncture on December 9, 2009 to honor Miriam Lee, the woman who set off the movement to legalize acupuncture in the US. An eight clinic in San Rafael will offer the free treatments on December 8.Born on December 9, 1926 in China, Lee immigrated to the United States in 1969 and settled in Palo Alto, California. Because it was illegal to practice acupuncture, she took a job on an assembly line. However, Lee found it impossible to not offer her skills and was soon seeing patients clandestinely. Over time, her reputation grew, until her practice became too large for her home. One anecdote related in her book, Insights of a Senior Acupuncturist, mentions the collapse of the steps to her back porch due to the number of people waiting to see her. Eventually, she found a sympathetic M.D. who allowed her to work out of his office during off-hours.In 1974 Lee was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. Her patients filled the courthouse at her hearing, demanding the right to receive acupuncture. Miriam Lee had offered them compassion and health, and now they came to her defense. Thanks to this public outcry, acupuncture was declared an “experimental procedure” and Lee was granted the right to see patients at San Francisco University. In 1976, acupuncture was legalized in California. Lee retired in 1997 and died at age 82 on June 24th of this year.Miriam Lee felt compelled to offer the healing power of acupuncture to as many people as possible. She treated a variety of illnesses for two decades in Palo Alto, starting her day early and treating as many as 10 patients per hour using tables and chairs in several rooms. In order to work quickly and effectively, Lee developed a simple 5-point, 10-needle protocol which proved helpful for the majority of common health complaints.Community acupuncturists draw inspiration from Miriam Lee and share her desire to provide acupuncture to as many people as possible. Following the example of Working Class Acupuncture in Portland, Oregon, Community Acupuncture clinics in the Bay Area offer affordable, sliding-scale acupuncture in quiet group spaces. Their mission is to increase access to regular and frequent acupuncture treatment for people with ordinary incomes and to build a sense of community among those receiving and providing care.

    In Lee’s memory, several Community Acupuncture clinics in the Bay Area will provide her treatment protocol (known as the “Miriam Lee tune up”) free to clients on December 9, 2009.Participating clinics are listed below. Contact them directly for business hours and other details.

     

    Acupuncture Today
    September, 2009, Vol. 10, Issue 09

    In Memoriam: Dr. Miriam Lee (1926-2009)

    http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32021(09142013)

    By Susan Johnson, LAc

    My relationship with Miriam began in 1982, when I was privileged enough to begin an internship with her. Through my many years with Dr. Lee, I was trained extensively in her unique style of acupuncture.

    In 1987, we traveled together to Hefei, China, to study bleeding techniques with Dr. Wang Su-Jen. We journeyed together through the “wild ride” of acupuncture politics in the 1980s and 1990s. She was my teacher and my friend, and a pioneer in the field of Chinese medicine in America.

    In Memoriam: Dr. Miriam Lee (1926-2009)

    Miriam was perhaps best known for her work with Master Tung’s “Magic Points.” Master Tung Ching Chang, widely viewed as the greatest acupuncture technician who ever lived, practiced a method of acupuncture that was passed down to him through his family from Shandong, China, for more than 300 years. This system is renowned for the spontaneous and miraculous results obtained using just a few needles. This method is unique in that points are located opposite the affected area, and patients tend to notice effects immediately upon needle insertion. Master Tung broke convention after the Chinese Cultural Revolution and began teaching this amazing system of points outside of his immediate family. Dr. Young Wei-Chieh and Dr. Miriam Lee, both students of Master Tung’s, are responsible for bringing this body of work to America.

    In 1976, Miriam was one of the very first to be licensed as an acupuncturist in the state of California. In 1974, she was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. At her trial, her patients filled the courtroom in protest of her arrest, claiming their right to the only medicine that had truly helped them. Within a few days, acupuncture was legally made an “experimental procedure” by Governor Ronald Reagan. In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown signed the legislation that once and for all, legalized acupuncture.

    It is through the untiring efforts of people like Miriam Lee, founder of the Acupuncture Association of America (AAA), and lobbyist Art Krause, that we here in California can boast acupuncture licensure, primary care physician status and primary insurance coverage. Although I feel personally and eternally indebted to Miriam, we should all remember the work that Miriam and Art did together, for our profession, for more than 30 years.

    For nearly a decade, the AAA single-handedly supported Krause. Dr. Lee would offer Master Tung’s Points classes for her students and licensed practitioners, in order to raise the money needed to support this legislative work. Krause, well-respected in Sacramento, was able to negotiate agreements with influential politicians over a cup of coffee. Things were very different in those days. State senators Art Torres (D) and Herschel Rosenthal (D), both instrumental in getting many acupuncture bills made into law, were among the friends of AAA and acupuncture. It is directly through the efforts of all of the above people, and a few others, that we can boast having the one of the most comprehensive scopes of practice in the country.

    In 1989, The Council of Acupuncture Organizations (CAO) was formed to unite the profession statewide in the legislative process and share Krause’s financial support. This group was composed of nine different acupuncture organizations throughout California; three Chinese, two Japanese, two Korean and two Caucasian. This was the first and only real attempt to date of which I am aware, to bring these different acupuncture communities together. Unfortunately, the group only met for two years, but during that time, the CAO was able to procure acupuncture coverage through worker’s compensation.

    As acupuncture politics evolved through the 90’s, many new organizations were formed, both state and nationwide. The AAA, having had a very significant role in the early formation of California acupuncture, was then able to focus primarily on its purpose of providing quality continuing-education classes. Dr. Lee sponsored many different well-known practitioners from China to come to her clinic in Palo Alto, Calif., to teach. These courses covered a variety of topics, such as Tung’s Points, herbal formulations, scalp acupuncture, wrist and ankle points, TCM gynecology and oncology.

    Upon retiring, Miriam moved to Southern California with her family. As her student of many years I have stepped forward to carry on the work of teaching Dr. Tung’s Points and Miriam’s style of acupuncture, and to continue the work of the AAA. It is my hope that the future will find Tung’s Points available and familiar to all those seeking more than “textbook” acupuncture techniques. They are unique not only because they are so extraordinarily, immediately effective, but also because they are very simple to learn and apply. As Miriam always said: “The important thing is to learn which key opens which lock.” May Master Tung’s Points open as many doors for you as they have for me and for generations before us all.


    Susan Johnson has been practicing Tung’s style of acupuncture since 1982 and licensed in California, since 1985. She studied Master Tung’s Points with Dr. Young Wei-Chieh and Dr. Miriam Lee for more than 12 years and has been using them almost exclusively in her practice since that time. Susan maintains a private practice in Santa Cruz, Calif.

    http://www.acupunctureamerica.com/acupuncture_history_california.html(09142013)

    Acupuncture in California During the 1970s

    CALIFORNIA GETS THE POINT
    by Colin Elbasani

    Special thanks to:
    Paul West
    Linda Barnes, PhD
    Joel Harvey Schreck, LAc
    Susan Johnson, LAc
    Benson You, LAc

    Contents
    1. Introduction
    2. Acupuncture Enters the American Mainstream
    3. The Evolution of Acupuncture in China
    4. Approving Acupuncture Research in California
    5. Medical Issues in the Regulation of Acupuncture
    6. Health Care Delivery Issues in Acupuncture Regulation
    7. Criticism of Acupuncture Regulation
    8. Conclusion
    Appendix. The Practice of Acupuncture: A Legislative Position Paper

    1. Introduction

    Geographically, California is the last stop in the continental United States before Asia. It is not surprising, then, that the medicine, philosophy, and other aspects of Asian culture constitute such a prominent part of the California experience. Although acupuncture is portrayed by some academics—perhaps because of their perspective from the East Coast—as having resulted in a tremendous culture clash between established Western medicine and Eastern exotic medicine, the historical record shows that their differences were more easily reconciled than these critics would have us believe; over the course of the last forty years, acupuncture has been completely integrated into California’s medical delivery system.

    While it may be true that “professions institutionalize control over social capital by establishing licensing procedures, internally run educational institutions, and self-regulation,” they do not exist first and foremost to do so. This is especially the case in the medical profession, where incompetence, carelessness, or plain ignorance can and sometimes does result in the injury or even death of a patient. Rather, these structures are in place to provide standards and safeguards that insure quality patient care. In fact, the evolving legislation regarding acupuncture in California reveals a steady progression from cautious, close scrutiny by the medical profession to its current state, which integrates acupuncture into mainstream healthcare while providing for autonomy of the government’s oversight of the acupuncture profession.

    Given how little scientific basis there was for the argument that acupuncture was effective at all, the medical community was actually quite tolerant, accommodating, and even encouraging of incorporating it into mainstream medical practice. Many members of the California Medical Association (CMA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) shared with laypeople the same curiosity and enthusiasm about the potential benefits of acupuncture to Western medicine in the early 1970s. Nevertheless, they hesitated to accept it as an effective form of therapy. Their reasons for doing so were well-founded, and their concerns over numerous issues raised by the public’s fascination with acupuncture were warranted.

    This thesis will explore the tensions between Western medicine and acupuncture in California, and how the latter came to be accepted as a form of alternative medicine and granted a great degree of professional independence and autonomy by the state. The chronology of acupuncture legislation will provide the framework for the narrative, drawing on the original legislative documents from the California State Archives in Sacramento, articles in newspapers and magazines, articles from the AMA, and the secondary literature available on the history of acupuncture and on the authority structure of established Western medicine.

    2. Acupuncture Enters the American Mainstream

    During the Cultural Revolution under Mao Tse Tung in the 1960s, diplomatic, cultural, and scientific relations between China and the United States relations were all but cut off completely. At this time, American fears of Communist hegemony overshadowed the public’s curiosity about Chinese culture. These Cold War tensions were finally eased by Ping-Pong Diplomacy in April of 1971, and Nixon’s subsequent meeting with Mao Tse Tung in late February of 1972, ultimately lifting the Bamboo Curtain (the Asian equivalent of the Iron Curtain), and opening up a flood of Chinese culture into America. Shortly after the Nixon visit in 1972, a sudden warming of relations between “red” China and the “imperialist” United States caused a surge in American public interest and fascination with many things Chinese.

    The two decades of Chinese isolation from the West only increased American curiosity about all things Asian. Acupuncture, a mysterious healing art that was that bore no relation whatsoever to Western medicine, piqued the curiosity of Americans more than most other subjects. The renewed interest Americans maintained for a seemingly exotic Chinese “other” was quite unlike what Edward Said calls Orientalism; the form of their interest was not imperialist, but anti-imperialist, taking place in a context that followed America’s own Cultural Revolution: the Civil Rights Movement. Many Americans, especially in academia, were revisiting the exoticness of the Chinese, not only with heightened curiosity, but with humility and a new appreciation and respect for non-Western cultures, political ideologies, and even medicine.

    This new China craze led to an avalanche of enquiries for travel visas from Chinese embassies in the United States. In the Bay Area, the San Francisco-based Women for International Understanding, the Asian Art Commission of San Francisco, and local 771 of the American Federation of Teachers, with the support of the California Federation of Teachers State Council in Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco, rushed to organize large group trips. In many universities, enrollment in Chinese language courses as much as doubled, numerous seminars and symposia on China were scheduled, and a survey of 165 universities found that the vast majority of students favored exchange programs with China. The New York Times reported, “Scientists are falling all over themselves wanting to go to China even those who know nothing about China.” One professional group particularly affected by the China craze was medical researchers.

    In 1971, the New York Times reporter James Reston’s article, “Now, About My Operation in Peking,” marked a turning point in the acceptance of Chinese medicine in America. Reston and his wife were invited to visit Beijing by the Chinese Government. On July 15, at 10:30 A.M., while speaking to foreign ministers at the Peking International Club, Reston suddenly felt a stab of pain go through his groin. Later that evening, he was bedridden with a temperature of one hundred and three degrees. The next day he was admitted to the Anti-Imperialist Hospital for examination. An hour later, consultants summoned by Premier Chou En Lai gathered around Reston to listen to a troubling irregular heartbeat pointed out by one of the doctors. After a moment’s deliberation the eleven leading medical specialists in Peking returned with their assessment: “Acute appendicitis. Should be operated on as soon as possible.” The two-and-a-half hour surgery was successfully carried out with the use of the anesthetics Xylocaine and Benzocaine. However, later that evening, as Reston lay in bed recovering, he began to experience abdominal discomfort from postoperative gas pains. Li Changyuan, a doctor of acupuncture at the Anti-Imperialist Hospital, inserted three long, thin needles into the outer part of his elbow and below his knees in order to stimulate the intestine and relieve pressure and distension of the stomach. Reston writes of the procedure,

    [it] sent ripples of pain racing through my limbs and, at least, had the effect of diverting my attention from the distress in my stomach. Meanwhile, Doctor Li lit two pieces of an herb called “ai,” which looked like the burning stump of a cheap cigar, and held them close to my abdomen while occasionally twirling the needles into action. All this took about twenty minutes, during which I remember thinking it was a rather complicated way of getting rid of gas on the stomach, but there was a noticeable relaxation of the pressure and distension within an hour and no recurrence of the problem thereafter.

    Reston goes on to assure his readers that his condition was genuine, and not some ‘journalistic trick’ to do investigative reporting of the Chinese medical system, quipping, “This is not only untrue, but greatly overrates my gifts of imagination, courage, and self-sacrifice. There are many things I will do for a good story, but getting slit open in the night or offering myself up as an experimental porcupine is not among them.”

    Although his account of Chinese medicine was met with skepticism, Reston’s personal experience as a patient of acupuncture anesthesia made him living, Western proof to physicians and the American public that acupuncture might be more than propaganda and hype. For the first time, academics and legislators were compelled to seriously consider investigating its potential as a tool in American operating rooms. Given the excitement in the media and curiosity of the public concerning acupuncture that followed, it is generally agreed that Reston’s article for the Times introduced the West to modern acupuncture. As Assemblyman Gordon Duffy, author of the first piece of acupuncture legislation, remarked the following year, “Especially since the self-recorded treatment of Mr. James Reston’s appendicitis by acupuncturists, we have been bombarded with stories about traditional Chinese medicine.” Though it is commonly believed President Nixon’s trip was responsible for introducing acupuncture to the United States in 1972, scholars such as Dr. Li Yongming, president of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association in the United States have argued otherwise. The China Daily, China’s largest English-language newspaper, has quoted Dr. Li as saying that “acupuncture fever” really began with James Reston a year earlier in 1971.

    3. The Evolution of Acupuncture in China

    American citizens were unknowingly embracing a form of acupuncture that was not a 5,000-year old science, as many believed it to be, but a modern adaptation that was still in an experimental phase of development. Their enthusiasm was partly based on the mystique associated with all things Oriental, but was also due to most coverage in the media describing it as ancient, with the rare exception of the occasional newspaper article that drew the distinction between traditional Chinese medicine and the modern version of it that was now being practiced in China. It is important at this point to give a brief overview of the recent history of acupuncture in China.

    China’s sovereignty became severely compromised by British aggression throughout the nineteenth century. As a result, the shattered perception of cultural superiority that she had maintained for over two millennia led many Chinese, for the first time in the nation’s history, to reevaluate their traditional cultural traditions, especially in regard to science and medicine. It quickly became apparent to the Mandarins that China would have to embrace Western technologies to compete militarily and economically in the modern world. Western medicine was spread by Christian missionaries, who established 340 hospitals in China between 1828 and 1949.

    In the 1920s, following the overthrow of the Emperor, traditional Chinese medicine came under fire by the liberal intellectuals as a vestige of the backwards, failed regime and as having no real benefit compared to the medicine practiced in Europe and the United States. Western medicine was soon referred to as the “new medicine” and traditional Chinese medicine as the “old medicine.” Chen Kuo-fu, a nationalist ideologue aligned with Chiang Kai-shek, condemned the radicals’ seeming renunciation of all things Chinese in favor of all things foreign as unpatriotic. Aware that traditional Chinese medicine had many shortcomings in comparison with modern medicine, Chen advocated a vision of a scientificized version of it, blending Eastern and Western knowledge into a new and superior discipline. Chen’s vision, however, would never come to fruition, as the conservative old and leftist new schools of medicine were too politically and ideologically polarized to reconcile their differences.

    Acupuncture and herbal medicine began to be favored once more with the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. While making use of the national resources in the numerous traditionally trained doctors was in line with Mao Tse Tung’s philosophy of self reliance and served to bolster national pride, it was also a necessary measure to address the problem of drastic shortages in Western medicine and trained physicians. Unlike earlier versions, acupuncture in the PRC was stripped of any religious or folkloric overtones, and revisited as something to be applied in the field of paramedicine, and as a subject worthy of research within China.

    By 1963, the PRC had an estimated one trained physician for every ten thousand people (compared to one per nine hundred people in the United States). This considerable gap was addressed by implementing a program of paramedicine, in which traditional healers would provide basic care to their local communities after receiving an elementary education in the fundamentals of first aid. Western-trained physicians were encouraged to “broaden their knowledge” in traditional healing and to create a new scientificized Chinese medicine, ironically echoing Chen Kuo-fu’s proposal decades earlier. By 1966, China boasted twenty institutions of traditional Chinese medicine with an enrollment of over ten thousand students, and an estimated sixty thousand apprentices training under practicing doctors. Apart from the immediate need to address the health care crisis in the countryside, experiments were being done with traditional Chinese medicine, especially acupuncture hypalgesia.

    “Acupuncture hypalgesia,” the proper medical term for pain management by acupuncture, was discussed in the findings of a study group sponsored by the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China of the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Social Science Research Council, who made a three-week visit to the People’s Republic of China in May of 1974 to witness forty-eight operations involving acupuncture-based pain management in sixteen hospitals. The group concluded “it must be clearly understood that acupuncture does not produce conventional surgical anesthesia. In no instance is sensation totally abolished or consciousness disturbed; thus ‘acupuncture anesthesia’ is a misnomer. There is considerable evidence, however, that acupuncture does affect the pain experience, although our observations suggest complete analgesia may not occur. Therefore the term ‘acupuncture analgesia’ is similarly inappropriate. In view of these limitations, it seems more reasonable to refer to the phenomenon as ‘acupuncture hypalgesia’.” Hypalgesia refers to diminishment of sensitivity to pain, rather than pain itself.

    It is in the context of pain management that acupuncture came to be introduced to mainstream medicine in the United States. In the 1970s, acupuncture was still very new as a mechanism of hypalgesia even in China, with its earliest successful use in this capacity dating back only to 1958 in a tooth extraction in Chansi Province. The first assertions that acupuncture was a science still in its experimental stages were not made by elite members of the American medical profession in the United States in some sort of effort to wrest medical authority from Chinese-Americans who had been practicing acupuncture in insular Chinatown communities, but by Chinese physicians such as Dr. Wei-Jan Wu, the deputy chief of surgery at Capital Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and leader of a Chinese medical delegation to the United States. In November of 1972, Wu told a press conference in San Francisco that acupuncture was still fraught with numerous unanswered questions that had to be addressed, that acupuncture could not replace other methods of hypalgesia, and was not indicated for every patient or every operation in China. “On the other hand,” Wu added, “we couldn’t say it is useless. We can say it is a new kind of anesthesia that can be added to conventional methods with promising prospects.” Wu’s clarification, that acupuncture as an hypalgesic was still experimental, was echoed in reports from American and Canadian delegations returning from China, who had been similarly informed by Chinese physicians during their visits.
    Dr. Samuel Rosen, an otologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, was one of the first American physicians permitted into China to witness major operations performed using acupuncture hypalgesia. In September of 1971, Rosen, accompanied by cardiologists Paul Dudley White of the University of Boston and E. Grey Dimond of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, were present at fifteen such operations at the Kwangtung Provincial People’s Hospital in Canton and later at the Third Teaching Hospital of the Peking Medical College. They witnessed brain operations, thyroid adenomas, gastrectomies, laryngectomies, and tonsillectomies being performed with acupuncture hypalgesia. The most striking case, for Rosen, was that of a victim of pulmonary tuberculosis. The operating room was much like one would find in any Western hospital and procedures for asepsis and preparation of the patient were consistent with those of Europe and the United States. The only difference, Rosen reported, was the presence of an acupuncturist who placed one needle in the patient’s forearm midway between the elbow and the wrist before surgery. After twirling the needles for twenty minutes to induce the desired effect, the surgeon began to cut into an awake and alert patient. The first incision was made from near the spine across the left side of the chest wall to the sternum. Then, with the use of surgical scissors, each rib was snipped away. Finally, with the use of a thoracic retractor, the chest cavity was exposed, revealing the patients beating heart and the patient’s collapsed lung. All the while the patient sipped tea and conversed with the surgeon, apparently in no pain whatsoever. This was only one of many impressive examples of acupuncture hypalgesia witnessed by Rosen. Others included teeth extractions that appeared to cause no pain to the patient.
    Thomas C. Elmendorf, President-elect of the California Medical Association, experimented with acupuncture treatment at the hands of Drs. B. C. Pien, of San Francisco, and Leung Kok-Yuen, a pain specialist and head of the North American College of Acupuncture in Vancouver, at a meeting of the San Francisco Medical Society on May 9, 1972. He had hoped to find relief from severe arthritis pain in his hip, from which he had suffered for over four years. As soon as the treatment was finished, Elmendorf rose to his feet and declared “there’s no question there is considerable relief of pain in my hip – the pain that I had when I came in is essentially and literally gone.” The treatment was repeated a month later by the same doctors at the California State Capitol building in front of an audience of curious legislators. When all was said and done, Elmendorf popped off the improvised operating table, saying to the onlookers, “it hurts, but it feels good.” Later, Elmendorf was flooded with inquiries about acupuncture and where to find similar treatment for pain relief. Regretting what he later considered a bit of a misleading overstatement, Elmendorf addressed the public with this generic letter:

    …The problem is simply this: acupuncture itself is a procedure in which the skin is penetrated, and as such must qualify as a medical, or perhaps, even surgical procedure. The Chinese physicians do not have licenses to practice medicine in the state of California or for that matter, anywhere in the United States or North America. Therefore, they are not licensed to practice acupuncture here, although acupuncture is not in itself illegal. A physician who had a license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of California, or in any of the states, who learned the procedure of acupuncture and wished to use it in his practice, could legally do so as long as he observed the ordinary prudence required of all medical practice.
    I personally believe that acupuncture has some potential as a technique to relieve pain or even, perhaps, to induce anesthesia for surgical procedures. The truth of the matter is that Western medicine knows very little about acupuncture, and I believe that we should attempt to learn about it. Accordingly, university centers are being encouraged to attempt a scientific evaluation of acupuncture treatment. It may even be possible that enabling legislation will be required; however, we are exploring the situation in depth, and no doubt you will be reading about it in the not too distant future.
    I want to make it perfectly clear, that I do not endorse acupuncture at this time. I am sorry that some of the newspaper articles gave this impression. It is only fair to report to you that a Chinese nurse, also part of the demonstration and who was reported to have multiple disc disease with two surgeries, tells me that she has had complete relief of her pain for a period of four weeks.
    I am immensely pleased that the medical profession here in California has such an open-minded attitude regarding this technique, about which we know very little; nor do we understand the traditional methods of Chinese medical practice.
    I should mention that there are no physicians’ names that I can give to you in the United States who practice acupuncture, although I have heard rumors that there are such physicians in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia. I want to emphasize that this is rumor only.
    My heart goes out to you, because I cannot do more for you; but if there is any value to the acupuncture treatment, we intend to find out.

    4. Approving Acupuncture Research in California

    On August 14, 1972, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 1500 in a 57-0 vote in the assembly and a 35-0 vote in the Senate. It authorized unlicensed practitioners to practice acupuncture under the direct supervision of a licensed physician in an approved medical school in California for the sole purpose of scientific investigation and research. The bill also required medical schools that conducted research on acupuncture to report their research findings to the legislature annually. Finally, it extended the same authority to supervise such experimentation to surgeons and dentists.
    There were several reasons why early research focused chiefly on acupuncture’s effectiveness in the area of pain management. The main reason for this is the way it was first introduced by the media as a miraculous anesthetic that bypassed all methods used by Western medicine. The main demonstrations of acupuncture to Western doctors were in this context. To test the effectiveness of acupuncture as a hypalgesic was to test its veracity, and it goes without saying that many western doctors were skeptical specifically about its application in this regard. Pain was a simple, easy, and timely criterion to test for.
    The prospect of replacing opiates with acupuncture was also appealing to doctors concerned about a host of problems associated with conventional forms of pain management, such as addiction, legal issues with schedule II (highly restricted) drugs, and complications in young, old, allergic or otherwise contraindicated patients. To many medical professionals and politicians during the 1970s, a non-narcotic alternative to pain management drugs could not have come at a better time. On the fourth of July, 1969, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” That year, 5.14 percent of college students reported having tried heroin, up from 3.2 percent the previous year. The problem was recognized as not only being limited to countercultural youths; American Vietnam veterans were returning from the Golden Triangle addicted to heroin. As the Yale historian of medicine David F. Musto points out in his book Quest for Drug Control: Politics and Federal Policy in a Period of Increasing Substance Abuse, 1963-1981, the problem of heroin abuse continued to increase into the 1970s.
    Lastly, physicians in the United States and China began to propose explanations for why acupuncture was working that had a scientific basis and could be understood and debated in terms of Western medical theory. Up until that point, western medicine could do nothing but dismiss the theory of qi flowing along meridians as little more than fantasy; modern, scientifically-based acupuncture was an animal with which Western medicine could finally grapple.
    Such an explanation was first given in 1972 to an audience at Caltech by George Wald, a Harvard biology professor and Nobel Laureate, who had recently visited research laboratories in China. Speaking only of modern uses of acupuncture in pain management, and not of traditional Chinese acupuncture for the treatment of disease, which he dismissed as “probably (having) no scientific grounds,” Wald assured the audience that modern acupuncture was “absolutely real” and not the result of hypnotism or suggestion. The research Wald had witnessed on his trip at the Physiological Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Shanghai was based on the recent gate-control theory of pain advanced by the American physician Robert Melzack and the British physician Patrick D. Wall in 1962.
    The gate-control theory challenged a more widely accepted and simpler theory of pain known as the specificity theory, which suggests signals are transmitted along nerves from a site of injury from receptors to the brain, where they are finally processed as pain. Gate-control theory, on the other hand, suggests that pain is less straightforward. According to gate-control theory, a gate-like mechanism exists in the pain-signaling system, which may be opened, partly opened, or completely closed. In the last two cases, pain is either reduced or non-existent. In 1973, Melzack hypothesized that acupuncture might close the gate by stimulating large nerve fibers, which in turn override activity in the small nerve fibers responsible for carrying pain signals to the brain.
    A debate began in 1972 in the letters to the editor section of the Journal of the American Medical Association about the best way to test the effectiveness of acupuncture in pain management. Bernard C. Adler first wrote to the editor proposing a double-blind study be carried out in which acupuncturists treat one group of patients with the proper set of acupuncture points and a control group using points slightly removed from the proper ones. Lester C. Mark responded that Mark’s suggestion of deceiving the patient by using false points would be inappropriate, as the patient is an active participant in the acupuncturist’s attempt to illicit paresthesis by reporting to the doctor if manually twirling the needles on the points is producing thé chi, a feeling of soreness or distention that indicates acupuncture hypalgesia is beginning to take effect. Doctors Chein and Shapiro responded saying that while manual stimulation might not produce the desired effect by manually twirling the needles at the wrong points, electrostimululation of acupuncture points would mimic the same soreness regardless of which points were chosen, adding that known points along meridians could be selected, making a double-blind test for placebo feasible. Mark responded, insisting once again that before any stimulation of the acupuncture points took place, whether manual or electrical, the needles would have to be correctly placed, and that this could not be counterfeited. Finally, Chein and Shapiro responded to Mark’s letter, saying that the only proposed studies up until that point were single-blind, as only the patient, and never the acupuncturist, was being deceived. They proposed a simple solution to the problem:

    …Make the study double-blind by briefly training and hiring naïve technicians, instructed by an acupuncturist without direct contact to the patients. If sufficient numbers of patients are randomly assigned to the specific and non-specific treatments, anomalies, such as grossly abnormal nerve distribution, and other individual differences, would be distributed between the two groups. Since only naïve subjects and acupuncture technicians would interact, the placebo effect of the treatment would affect both groups equally. If the treatment at the presumed acupuncture point resulted in significantly more improvement than at the control or nonspecific acupuncture point, the conclusion would be that acupuncture is better than placebo in the condition under study.
    Such a double-blind study was carried out as early as July of 1972 as part of the UCLA School of Medicine’s research project on the efficacy of treating rheumatoid arthritis patients with acupuncture. Candidacy for participating in the study was determined by whether or not sufferers of arthritis pain were not responding well to the latest treatments available to western medicine. Of the two dozen patients observed over the course of ten weeks, half were treated by inserting needles into prescribed acupuncture points that fell along meridians, while the other half were treated using randomly selected points.

    5. Medical Issues in the Regulation of Acupuncture

    Starting in the 1960s, radical social movements, beginning with the counterculture, then the antiwar movement, and then the women’s liberation movement, emerged on a vast scale in the United States and Europe. Everything that was part of the existing order was questioned and criticized. Medicine, like many other institutions, suffered a stunning loss of confidence in the 1970s. Fantastic accounts coming back from early visits to China by American doctors in 1971 and 1972 set imaginations ablaze and caused physicians as well as laypersons to entertain high hopes that where Western medicine had disappointed traditional Chinese Medicine might succeed.
    Western medicine faced a unique challenge in the arena of popular opinion. Only a year after Reston’s article sparked widespread interest in acupuncture, contemporary authors such as Marc Duke were already criticizing the reception of acupuncture by the Medical profession in 1972. Responding to his question about who might practice acupuncture in the United States, Duke quotes the AMA’s science news editor, Frank Chappell, as saying “it would be the practice of medicine, so it would have to be licensed. That is, it would have to be done by licensed physicians.” Duke then goes on to conjecture:

    Most physicians are dedicated, hard-working men who earn their pay – and more. If acupuncture were to become common in the United States, doctors’ incomes would fall. Surgeons and anesthesiologists would be the hardest hit if acupuncture replaced general anesthesia, as it might. The huge amount of drugs American doctors prescribe would also fall. Fewer prescriptions would mean less money for drug manufacturers, another powerful lobby in Washington. Drug companies contribute huge sums of money to medical research. They are unlikely to support research into a medical system that is not founded on the use of drugs.
    Such scathing remarks about Western doctors’ sentiments about acupuncture were not uncommon in an era when mistrust of government and corporate enterprise was rife. Western medicine was distrusted as part of the ancient régime. However, the comments by Thomas N. Elmendorf, M.D., the President-elect of the California Medical Association, reveal that Chappell’s answer to Duke’s query, if taken as a single-sentence sound bite, is apt to mislead the reader.
    It should come as a surprise to no one that in this initial period of regulation, concerned legislators and medical professionals called for a period of restriction and research to safeguard an eager public from engaging in a practice that posed considerable risks in the wrong hands. The California Medical Association and the California Department of Consumer Affairs responded to a seemingly unbridled acupuncture craze with demands that the state legislature pass some sort of regulation on a form of medical service which, up to that point in time, had none.
    There is a considerable risk of structural damage due to insertion of acupuncture needles, the most common of which is pneumothorax (collapsed lung) . In 1973 and 1974, six cases of pneumothorax as a result of acupuncture were reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine alone. One of the cases involved a patient seeking acupuncture as a treatment for atypical migraine in August of 1973. When she sought medical attention two days later for pain in her left shoulder blade and increasing shortness of breath, doctors discovered that 35% of her left lung had collapsed, requiring re-expansion with a chest tube. When the California State Assembly was deliberating over legislation to follow AB 1500, the CMA voiced concern about such complications, presenting the legislature with an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association entitled “Complications of Acupuncture,” which dealt chiefly with the problem of pneumothorax.
    Other complications leading to structural damage were known to have occurred with acupuncture, including but not limited to cardiac tamponade (an emergency condition in which fluid builds up in the sac containing the heart) caused by too deep of a penetration to an acupuncture point located below the fifth rib, spinal cord damage associated with the ya-men acupuncture point, penetration of the eye as a result of misdirection of needles inserted subpraorbitally or infraoribitally, and damage to the external middle ear.
    Elmendorf’s letter gives us another very critical reason why acupuncture, unlike other traditional Chinese therapies such as herbal treatments, came under such close scrutiny: it is an invasive procedure, that is, a procedure that enters the body, by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body. Medical expertise is necessary in such an instance because the skin is the body’s first line of defense against bacterial or viral infection. Whereas HIV infection would probably constitute the chief threat to public health from contaminated needles nowadays, in the 1970s the AMA and CMA were concerned about the spread of hepatitis. Outbreaks linked to poorly sanitized, reused needles were known to have occurred in rural parts of China and while such cases were few and far between in the United States, the concern was not unwarranted. In 1984, a rash of hepatitis B infections struck thirty-five patients at an acupuncture clinic in Rhode Island.
    The arrival of acupuncture in the United States did not signal the first time medicine had to put its foot down and declare a procedure invasive. The admittedly more extreme case of the lobotomist Walter Freeman sheds light on how the grey area between what is and what is not an invasive procedure can be stretched. Although Freeman was more familiar with neuroanatomy than the average psychiatrist, he was not formally trained as a neurosurgeon and therefore lacked the necessary qualifications to participate in brain surgeries as anything more than a surgeon’s assistant. Rather than put his career on hold to receive surgical training, he devised a new procedure that could be performed in a matter of minutes by anyone with an ice pick. This procedure called for entering the brain through the tear ducts, which are naturally sterile, leading him to reason that, apart from sterilizing the instrument used to perform the lobotomy, there was no need for asepsis.
    Knowing he could not perform the new lobotomy in an institutional setting, Freeman began offering his transorbital lobotomy to patients in his private office. Freeman’s critics were often very vocal about how inappropriate they found it for psychiatrists to carry out the work of surgeons. One such critic, David Cleveland, remarked, “the surgeon will shudder, and rightly so, at the thought of cerebral surgery becoming an office procedure in the hands of the usually, very unsurgical psychiatrist.”
    Freeman took an adversarial position, asserting that “neurosurgeons were simply trying to stake out the brain as their exclusive property.” In order to reclaim what he perceived as the surgeons’ monopoly on the right to lobotomize, he went to great lengths to proselytize that his new method was so easy, simple, and efficient that anyone from any discipline, not just surgeons, could do it.
    It could be argued that Freeman’s lobotomies, although extremely invasive, in fact do not require formal training in surgery to be safe and effective. Acupuncture, too, can indeed be practiced safely and effectively without all of the training of a professional surgeon. Although acupuncture is not lobotomy, is far less invasive, and poses far fewer risks, it technically remains an invasive procedure and complications involving the practice can and have occurred.
    The concern about acupuncture being an invasive procedure was not limited to licensed or unlicensed practitioners. The L.A. Times reported that along with the lifting of the Bamboo Curtain, coolie hats, Mao jackets and acupuncture kits were flying off of store shelves. At a hearing on acupuncture in the California State Assembly, legislators expressed concern that laypeople might pick up a book and attempt to practice on themselves. Bob Felt, in an interview with Boston University medical anthropologist Linda L. Barnes, a leading authority on the history of acupuncture in the United States, remarked of informally practicing acupuncture in the 1970s, “we were middle class kids, a lot of us. It was illegal as a practice, and we never thought we would make a living at it. I practiced out of a back room of the bookstore. It was something of an outlaw role. Having gone through our early adult years as outlaws with a feeling of rejection and of not belonging, we probably outlawed it more than it needed to be. But without outlaws, nothing new comes into the culture.” Felt provides an example of the young and naive who dabbled in acupuncture like outlaws in the romantic tradition of Robin Hood. As has been discussed, acupuncture is not a quaint curiosity of the Orient, but a real medical practice with real medical complications. While Felt and others like him might have been well-meaning, acupuncture has no more business being practiced in the back room of a bookstore by amateurs than does a coat hanger abortion.
    The public’s disenchantment with Western medicine also made it prey to rampant charlatanism in acupuncture. The flurry of interest in traditional Chinese medicine occasionally led unwitting patients into the offices of opportunists eager to charge an arm and a leg for their seemingly exotic and cutting edge services. From a public health standpoint, what was especially alarming was that many of these “clinics” or “institutes” that seemed to crop up overnight operated more like ‘mills’, processing hundreds of patients daily. These so-called “quackupuncturists” often promised relief from minor afflictions that tend to cure themselves in time, such as headaches, to more permanent problems, such as baldness. One remarkable example of such deception is that of acupuncture ‘institutes’, and ‘centers’ claiming to cure nerve deafness within a few treatments – an experimental procedure that hadn’t shown any clinical success in China.

    6. Health Care Delivery Issues in Acupuncture Regulation

    AB 1500 was only ten weeks old when the Assembly Committee on Health Manpower held a hearing on acupuncture. The goals of the hearing were to balance their stated desire to help ensure that it became available to the general public to the extent proven therapeutically valuable with the need for protection of public welfare; to protect the public’s right to receive acupuncture on the one hand with the need to protect the public from those who were inadequately trained to administer acupuncture on the other. Dr. Elmendorf was present to represent the California Medical Association’s position:

    …I am here to support the second objective of your committee which is really twofold, and that is to protect the public interest, number one, in the sense that if this is of value, let’s find out what that value is, so that the public may receive it, and secondly, that we see to it that they receive it in the proper way, and that they are protected from the development of cult for the exploitation of the public by those who would do so for monetary reasons or whatever.
    When asked if the legislature should approach the problem of acupuncture by declaring it a medicine that only physicians could practice, Elmendorf responded:

    Well, I would have to struggle with that, as I am sure you are. I would say this, that it would seem that the penetration of the skin with needles does constitute the practice of medicine, although we know of instances where this is done by other than physicians for purposes of diagnosis. We know that earlobes are punctured, for example, by jewelers for ear rings …the procedure of penetrating the skin with needles does carry the risk of infection, it carries risk of penetrating some vital structures, perhaps, and, as you pointed out earlier, it particularly carries the risk of diagnosis and treatment. As you know, we don’t advocate giving morphine for a stomach pain before we know what is causing the pain. One could see the use of acupuncture to relieve a symptom prior to the time an adequate diagnosis was made. So I do believe that the position of the California Medical Association is that this procedure should be in reliable hands. We need to have, in some way, we need to encourage, stimulate, if you would, the medical centers to give a scientific evaluation of this. This is what I think is in legislation now, if it permissive. I would rather not see it mandatory, but if there were some way that we could move this before it gets out of hand, as I think is one of your fears, I would be very much for that, and I am sure the Medical Association would be, too.
    In response to questions from Assemblyman William Campbell about how he came to be temporarily relieved of arthritis pains and how acupuncture works, Elmendorf replied:

    Whether it is hypnotic or not, which the Chinese vehemently deny, and there seems to be substantial evidence against that theory, as well as some evidence for it, or whether it is a type of somatic phenomenon, I really don’t care, as long as an individual has had adequate diagnosis and is not having a delay in needed treatment, I don’t care how his pain is relieved. There are many people that I have found, from letters all over this country, who are in chronic pain and would like to obtain some way to obtain relief. They will grasp at straws. It is, of course, the fear of this committee, and my fear that they may go too far in this thing. Lets [sic.] try to find out what its value is and how it does work.
    A major issue that also came up at the hearing was the impact of AB 1500 on practicing acupuncturists. Dr. William Prensky, Chairman of the Board of the Institute of Taoist Studies, a non-profit organization in California, observed, “we have a major concern that acupuncture, practiced by competent practitioners, not be forced underground in the state of California, and therefore that all practitioners, both competent and incompetent, be forced into the same type of clandestine practice, so that it will forever be impossible to separate those proper practitioners from the improper practitioners.”
    Indeed, for the vast majority of Chinese practitioners of acupuncture, AB 1500 effectively stripped them of any autonomy as caregivers to their communities. Whereas they were once largely ignored by the rest of the public as they practiced in the nooks and crannies of their respective Chinatowns across the state, they were now met with interested outsiders seeking relief they could not find elsewhere. Arrests under the new law followed quickly, as the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Board of Medical Examiners cracked down to emphasize the point that acupuncture was now subject to medical regulation home.
    The first such arrest occurred in December of 1972, when a client of George Long, a martial arts instructor and the owner of the George Long School of Kung Fu at 1865 Post Street, San Francisco, notified the Department of Consumer Affairs that Long was offering acupuncture treatment without the proper credentials, and that he had been doing so for quite some time. Long was released on five hundred dollars bail, potentially facing a six hundred dollar fine and up to six months in jail on charges of practicing acupuncture without a medical license.
    The most well known of the early arrests of acupuncturists is that of Miriam Lee. On April 16th, 1974, as stunned patients looked on in disbelief, Lee was arrested by agents of the Department of Consumer Affairs on charges of practicing medicine in California without a license in her Palo Alto office at 555 Middlefield Road. She was later freed on five hundred dollars bail and faced an additional five hundred dollar fine and six months in jail if convicted. When Lee appeared at her hearing, over a hundred of her patients showed up as well. News of the widespread support she received drew attention from the legislature, convincing many that the subject of acupuncture was an urgent social and cultural issue as well as a medical one.
    Apart from the immediate need to protect the general public from the potential side effects of acupuncture, there was also a need to integrate Chinese medicine into the existing public health model. Members of the acupuncture research project at UCLA maintained in a written statement to the California State Legislature that lifting the restrictions on acupuncture would be premature, as certain measures would have to be taken to ensure that legalization would result in the formation of a safe and ultimately legitimate profession. Their intentions were not to stifle or control acupuncture, but to facilitate a process that would guarantee acupuncturists as much independence and autonomy from the established medical community as possible. They argued, “licensed acupuncturists should operate their own offices, carry their own malpractice insurance, etc., thus allowing them a certain degree of autonomy from other medical practitioners.”
    The UCLA research team’s statement summarized the conflict between medical authorities and proponents of acupuncture: the first group believed regulating acupuncture was necessary to prevent exploitation and to minimize harm to the public, while the second group believed physicians were too ignorant about acupuncture and too financially vested in maintaining a status quo to regulate it. These two perspectives, they believed, could be reconciled by legislation that provided licensing of all practitioners, qualifications for licensure, standards of practice, establishment of an Acupuncture Advisory Board, and funds for research. The requirements they believed were necessary for licensure included fluent knowledge of the English language, basic knowledge of anatomy and physiology, basic knowledge of western medicine, basic knowledge of aseptic procedure, and basic knowledge of acupuncture.
    The reason they considered a knowledge of anatomy, asepsis, and Western medicine, in general, to be necessary for acupuncturists’ training was solely to prevent complications. In the case of asepsis, for instance, many practitioners of Oriental medicine did not believe in germ theory. In order to prevent the spread of diseases such as hepatitis, the UCLA researchers insisted germ theory should, at least, be respected as plausible until proven otherwise (the document is reproduced in full in the appendix). The incidences of punctured lung, although few and far between, were well known to Western doctors, and this was the chief reason for urging that a basic understanding of anatomical structures be made compulsory in training and certification. That acupuncturists should have a basic understanding of Western medicine may seem ethnocentric, but the researchers argued there were simply too many factors in patient safety, when it came to acupuncture, that Oriental medicine could not account for, such as the ramifications of sticking needles into someone who is taking anticoagulants, or is hemophilic, or the complications that can result from performing electroacupuncture on a patient who has a pacemaker.
    Some of these requirements, such as fluent knowledge of the English language, may strike some as excessive or culturally biased. Foreseeing this, the UCLA team argued that it was only fair that patients be able to obtain clear answers from their caregiver, and caregivers must be able to understand the complaints of patients, adding that foreign trained physical therapists, nurses, psychologists, and other caregivers were required to pass examinations by the Medical Board in English, and that acupuncturists should share the same responsibility as there fellow caregivers.
    In 1975, legislators deliberated over a new bill that was to have profound impact on acupuncturists. Senate Bill 86 was to move acupuncture from being an experimental procedure performed behind the walls of universities back to private practices. It called for the creation of a governor-appointed, seven-member Acupuncture Advisory Committee, consisting of five non-physicians with at least ten years’ experience in acupuncture and two physicians with at least two years’ experience in acupuncture to assist the California Board of Medical Examiners. It also provided, for the first time, a state certification program for acupuncturists by the Board and the automatic certification of acupuncturists upon proving they were in practice for five years or for three years on condition they participate in a designated acupuncture program. Furthermore, the bill permitted certified acupuncturists to practice on patients with a referral or diagnosis from a physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, or chiropractor, and for the acupuncturist to report back to the referring doctor the nature and effects of the treatment upon its completion. Finally, it called for the dismissal of all pending cases of practicing medicine without a license for all those who met the criteria to qualify as acupuncturists under the new guidelines, and for all convictions of acupuncturists for practicing without a license pending on appeal to be remanded to trial court for the verdicts to be appealed and judgments of acquittal entered.

    7. Criticism of Acupuncture by Western Doctors

    Some medical anthropologists, including Paul Root Wolpe and Linda L. Barnes, have argued that the call for regulation of acupuncture by medical doctors was an attempt to assert their authority over and defend the dominant paradigm of western medicine against the threat of traditional Chinese medicine. Barnes argues that the medical profession’s adversarial reaction to the public’s sudden interest in acupuncture was twofold: first they asserted control over acupuncture through the demand for research and clinical trials; secondly, they regulated practitioners in what amounted to another form of social control. Of the emphasis on pain management in acupuncture research and the neglect to study other areas in which acupuncture might prove an effective form of treatment, Wolpe additionally argues:

    …the entire theoretical framework of traditional Chinese acupuncture had to be replaced … Biomedicine had no means of assessing the validity of these cultural models. Traditional acupuncture theory and treatment philosophy was therefore all but discarded, and acupuncture analgesia/anesthesia—a very small part of traditional acupuncture’s therapeutic claims (acupuncture anesthesia was not used in China until the 1960s)—was presented as acupuncture’s only true potential contribution to Western medicine.
    Barnes echoes Wolpe’s suspicion of biomedical “authorities” in her article “The Acupuncture Wars: The Professionalizing of Acupuncture in the United States”:

    To control the actual practice of acupuncture, U.S. physicians argued that it should be categorized as an experimental procedure and that it should only be performed in a research setting either by a doctor or under a doctor’s supervision … by appearing to support research, and by creating structured channels through which to engage with this foreign modality, biomedical authorities could claim that the playing field was not only level but also open to new approaches.
    Her assessment of the medical profession is unflattering. As we have seen and as Barnes also concedes, between acupuncture and Western medicine, the latter modality was the one that was at a disadvantage, as it was met with challenges posed by the former’s having taken on a special meaning to early lay practitioners, patients, and the American public “as part of a broader cultural stance of resistance in the pursuit of alternative ideals.” As recently as 1999, Wolpe continued to argue that “Modern American biomedicine has been singularly successful in excluding competitors from challenging its legitimacy.”
    The case that the medical profession has sought to undermine the profession of acupuncture does not survive scrutiny. As has been described, medical professionals such as Dr. Thomas Elmendorf and the UCLA acupuncture research team demonstrated a sincere willingness to explore the potential of acupuncture and to even see it integrated into mainstream medicine. By 1997, this integration was realized so completely that the National Institute of Health held a two and a half day seminar on acupuncture for the continuing education of physicians.
    Not only is this evidenced by historical documents, but by the timeline of acupuncture legislation, which illustrates a trend towards autonomy. The passage of Senate Bill 86 (Moscone-Song), passed in 1975, legally moved acupuncture from an experimental procedure performed behind the walls of California’s universities back to the private offices of community doctors. SB 86 was a major victory for acupuncturists on several counts. By creating an advisory committee answerable to the Board of Medical Examiners and a state certification program, it paved the way for recognizing acupuncture as a legitimate therapeutic profession.
    The victory for acupuncturists was bittersweet. To the chagrin of many acupuncturists, the required diagnosis and referral by a Western doctor was difficult for patients to obtain, as few medical doctors were willing to refer patients to acupuncturists for fear of compromising their credibility among their peers, many of whom believed that further experimentation was necessary to determine acupuncture’s effectiveness. The requirement of a Western diagnosis was also seen as counterproductive to acupuncturists, whose methods of diagnosis were radically different.
    Legislation that followed between 1978 and 1998, however, reversed many of the initial restrictions placed on acupuncturist, including the requirement of a Western diagnosis and doctor’s referral. The legislation’s trajectory reveals a progression from initial easing up of restrictions, to professionalization via certification, to self-regulation; a path towards recognition and autonomy.
    S.B. 1106, passed in 1978, had several effects. It added four public members to the acupuncture board, each of whom would serve a three-year term, authorized the board of Medical Quality Assurance to approve apprenticeship programs for acupuncturists as specified, established standards for continuing education for acupuncturists, required anyone who failed to renew a certificate within five years of its expiration date to demonstrate skills in acupuncture in addition to any required examinations, and called for the retaining of ten percent of the application fee for an acupuncturist’s certificate if the application were to be denied or withdrawn. It deleted the “grandfather” provision, which allowed a certificate to be issued to anyone who had performed acupuncture for five years. Finally, it required acupuncturists to post their certificates in each location of practice and specified the fee for a duplicate certificate.
    A.B. 1391, which passed 74-25 in the legislature in 1979, repealed that part of SB86 that required a prior diagnosis or referral from a physician, surgeon, chiropractor, dentist, or podiatrist and the requirement that acupuncturists report back to the referring doctor.
    In 1980, A.B. 3040 replaced the Acupuncture Advisory Committee with an Acupuncture Examining Committee, and expanded the scope of practice to include electroacupuncture, herbal remedies and dietary supplements, Oriental massage, and other traditional Chinese therapies. It also articulated a necessity that individuals practicing acupuncture be subject to regulation and control as primary care physicians.
    Finally, in 1998, S.B. 1980 and S.B. 1981 removed the Acupuncture Committee from Medical Board jurisdiction, renaming it the California Acupuncture Board.

    8. Conclusion

    The published analyses of the American medical profession’s negotiation of the sudden introduction and popularity of acupuncture in the early 1970s do not do justice to what was actually a very and progressive response on its part. Authors like Wolpe and Barnes tend to downplay the open-mindedness with which Western physicians met acupuncture in the 1970s, by reifying the medical community and portraying it as an ignorant, hostile, and monolithic entity bereft of any diversity of opinion. Paul Starr has argued, on the contrary, that the uniformity and cohesiveness of the medical profession broke down in the 1970s, as the influx of foreign doctors transformed it into the most ethnically diverse of the upper-income occupations.
    It should not be assumed that this critical evaluation of these authors’ perception of Western medicine’s reaction to acupuncture in the 1970s is only maintained by those partial to the former or suspicious of the latter. In his acupuncture textbook, Understanding Acupuncture, Dr. Stephen Birch echoed similar sentiments:

    [Wolpe] proposes that by placing acupuncture in the ‘holding cell’ of experimental status, that threat [to western medicine] was eliminated. For those who participated in acupuncture licensure efforts, it is clear that both physician opposition and internal conflict among acupuncture’s philosophical and ethnic divisions retarded those efforts. However, the extent of any physician-funded opposition is unclear. And, regarding what future in-depth research will reveal regarding the political role of physicians, the contribution if individual physicians should not go unmentioned.
    The medical profession did indeed encourage legislative restriction on the promising, exciting, and exotic therapy that the public found to be acupuncture in the early 1970s. As we have seen, their reasons for doing so were chiefly out of concern for public welfare. After a period of investigation by open-minded Western doctors and legislators, however, acupuncture was put on a track which led to it becoming fully integrated into mainstream medical practice.

    Bibliography

    Primary Sources:

    “Acupuncture Arrest in Palo Alto.” The San Francisco Chronicle, April 18, 1974

    “Acupuncture Bill OKd.” Los Angeles Times, Aug 15, 1972; Pp. C3

    “Acupuncture: Canadian anesthetists report on visit to China.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 16, 1974, Vol. 3.

    “Acupuncture Craze Gets A Sharp Poke In Medical Report.” Wall Street Journal. June 18, 1974.

    Adler, Bernard C., MD. “Letter: Acupuncture.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Nov. 13, 1972. Vol. 222, No. 7.

    American Acupuncture Anesthesia Study Group. Acupuncture Anesthesia in the People’s Republic of China: A Trip Report of the American Acupuncture Anesthesia Study Group. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1976.

    “Behind the Bamboo Curtain.” Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1949.

    Bonica, John J., MD. “Therapeutic Acupuncture in the People’s Republic of China: Implications for American Medicine.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 228, No. 12, June 17, 1974.

    California State Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. Staff Analysis of S.B. 86 (1975). Microfilm at the California State Archives, drawer 1, reel 4, item 26.

    California State Legislature. Acupuncture: A Hearing before the Assembly Select Committee on Health Manpower. Sacramento: October 19, 1972.

    California State Legislature. Senate Bill 86 (1975), Governor’s Chaptered Bill File, California State Archives. Microfilm, drawer 3, reel 3, item 30.

    California State Legislature. Senate Bill 1106 (1978). Governor’s Chaptered Bill File, California State Archives. Microfilm drawer 3, reel 3, item 53.

    California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 1391 (1979). Governor’s Chaptered Bill File, California State Archives. Microfilm drawer 3, reel 3, item 57.

    Carron, H., B.S. Epstein, and B. Grand. “Complications of Acupuncture.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 228, Issue 12, 1552-1554, June 17, 1974

    Ching, Frank. “China: It’s the Latest American Thing!” New York Times, Feb 16, 1972.

    Dallos, Robert E. “New U.S. Craze: Acupuncture Kits to Bamboo Pipes.” Los Angeles Times. February 26, 1972.

    Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, State of California. Comparison of Acupuncture to Methadone Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: Interim Report to the Legislature. January, 1989.

    Duffy, Gordon. Letter to Governor Ronald Reagan. August 4th, 1972. Governor’s Chaptered Bill File, California State Archives. Microfilm drawer 3, reel 3, item 13.

    Elmendorf, Thomas N., M.D. “A Letter on Acupuncture.” California Medicine: The Western Journal of Medicine, August 1972, Pp. 75-76.

    “First Arrest under New Acupuncture Law.” The San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 16, 1972.

    “Herbs, Leaves and Eels’ Blood Fill Medicine Gap in Red China.” New York Times, March 20, 1966.

    Johnson, Susan, L.Ac. Interview with author. March 2, 2009.

    Kuiper, John J., M.D. “Pneumothorax as Complication of Acupuncture.” Journal of the American Medical Association, September 9, 1971. Vol. 229, No. 11.

    Lerner, Max. “And Now Americans Embrace the China Craze.” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 21, 1972.

    Mark, Lester C. “Letter to the Editor.” Journal of the American Medical Association. (223:922) 1973.

    Mark, Lester C., MD. “Double-blind Studies of Acupuncture.” Journal of the American Medical Association. September, 1972. Vol 225, Pp. 1532b.

    National Institute of Health. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Acupuncture, Bethesda, Maryland. November. 3-5, 1997.

    Nelson, Harry. “Nobel Winner Explains Use of Acupuncture as Anesthesia.” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1972.

    Nelson, Harry. “Acupuncture Not a Cure-All, Chinese Says.” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1972.

    Oganesoff, Igor. “Drug, MD Shortage Forces China to Turn to Ancient Remedies.” Wall Street Journal. July 10, 1963.

    Perlman, David. “500 S.F. Doctors See Acupuncture.” San Francisco Chronicle. May 10, 1972.

    Perlman, David. “Acupuncture Tried at UC.” San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 1972.

    Reston, James. “Now, About My Operation in Peking.” New York Times. Jul 26, 1971.

    Rosen, Samuel. “I Have Seen the Past and It Works,” New York Times, Nov. 1, 1971.

    Rosen, Samuel MD. “On Quackupuncture,” New York Times, May 28, 1974.

    Shapiro, Arthur K., MD. and Edmund Y.M. Chein BS. “Evaluation of Acupuncture.” Journal of the American Medical Association. June 11, 1973. Vol. 224, No. 11.

    Shapiro, Arthur K., MD., and Edmund Y.M. Chein, BS. “Letter: A Mini Symposium on Acupuncture.” March, 1974. Vol. 227, Pp. 1122-1123.

    The Practice of Acupuncture: A Legislative Position Paper. California State Archives. Microfilm drawer 1, reel 4, item 26. Reproduced below. (see Appendix).

    Weisser, Peter. “Acupuncture at the Capitol.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 30, 1972.
    Secondary Sources:

    Barnes, Linda L. “The Acupuncture wars: The Professionalizing of Acupuncture in the United States – A View from Massachusetts.” Medical Anthropology, Volume 22, Number 3, July-September 2003.

    Birch, Stephen J., and Robert L. Felt. Understanding Acupuncture. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.

    Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. Acupuncture: A Complementary Therapy Framework. Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, 2004.

    Duke, Marc. Acupuncture. New York: Pyramid House Books, 1972.

    El-Hai, Jack. The Lobotomist: A Maverick Medical Genius and His Tragic Quest to Rid the World of Mental Illness. Hoboken: Wiley, 2005.

    Elmar T. Peuker, MD; Adrian White, MD; Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD; Franz Pera, MD. “Traumatic Complications of Acupuncture: Therapists Need to Know Human Anatomy.” Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 6, November, 1999.

    Fairbank, John K. and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 11: Late Ch’ing, 1800-1911, Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

    Kent, George P. “A Large Outbreak of Acupuncture-Associated Hepatitis B.” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 127, No. 3

    MacMillian, Margaret. Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World. New York: Random House, 2007.

    Melzack, Ronald. “How Acupuncture Works: A Sophisticated Western Theory Takes the Mystery Out.” Psychology Today, 7 1 June 1973.

    Musto, David F. Quest for Drug Control : Politics and Federal Policy in a Period of Increasing Substance Abuse, 1963-1981. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

    Ortner, Sherry B. “Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 1, (Jan 1984).

    Risse B. Guenter, M.D., Ph.D. Modern China and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Symposium Held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1973.

    Said, Edward. Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

    Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry. New York: Basic Books, 1982.

    Wall, Patrick D., and Ronald Melzack. “On the Nature of Cutaneous Sensory Mechanisms.” Brain, 85:331, 1962.

    Wang, Zhenguo, Chen Ping, and Xie Peiping. History And Development of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Beijing: Beijing Science Press, 1999.

    Wolpe, Paul Root. “The Maintenance of Professional Authority: Acupuncture and the American Physician.” Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 5, June 1985.

    Wolpe, Paul Root. “Alternative Medicine and the AMA.” in Robert Baker et al. (eds.), Ethics in American Medicine. The American Medical Ethics Revolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.

    Zhiyong, Chen. “Of Pins, Needles, and Pain Relief”. China Daily, Feb. 15, 2006.

    Appendix

    The Practice of Acupuncture: A Legislative Position Paper
    Available on microfilm at the California State Archives, file 1, reel 4, item 26

    A. The Problem

    Although acupuncture is probably the world’s oldest known system of medicine, its introduction into the American healthcare delivery system has been highly controversial. Legislation enacted by different state legislatures has varied from total legalization (Nevada) to specific restrictions even upon licensed physicians (New York). Basically, two opposing (but not necessarily conflicting) points of view have emerged: “medical authorities” argue that some kind of regulatory controls must be exercised over non-physician practitioners to prevent exploitation and/or danger to the public, and they cite published reports of infection, nerve damage, cardiac arrest, pnrumothorax, etc. following acupuncture treatment. On the other hand, non-physician acupuncturists (and their supporters) argue that they should not be regulated by physicians who know almost nothing about it and who have a vested financial interest in maintaining a status quo which allows them to practice legally.

    B. The Solution

    We believe that these two positions can be reconciled by the enactment of legislation that provides for the following:

    (1) Licensure of all practitioners.
    (2) Qualifications for licensure.
    (3) Standards of practice.
    (4) Establishment of an Acupuncture Advisory Board.
    (5) Funds for research.

    C. Licensure of all Practitioners

    Although in some states, non-physician acupuncturists are permitted to practice by referral or under the supervision of licensed physicians, the great majority of physicians are untrained in acupuncture and therefore are unable to evaluate the training, experience, and competence of acupuncturists, nor the appropriateness of any technique which they wish to deploy. Therefore, we feel strongly that all practitioners of acupuncture (including physicians and dentists) should be specifically licensed and regulated by the Board of Medical Examiners, if they are able to meet the minimal qualifications listed above. Acupuncture licenses should be subject to periodic review so that appropriate sanctions can be taken against incompetent or unethical practitioners. Licensure will insure at least minimal training and competence, and will permit acquisition of appropriate malpractice insurance and professional certification of non-physician acupuncturists. Like osteopaths, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, registered physical therapists, and other medical paraprofessionals, licensed acupuncturists should operate their own offices, carry their own malpractice insurance, etc., thus allowing them a certain degree of autonomy from other medical practitioners. The penalty for practicing acupuncture without a valid license should be a misdemeanor offense.

    D. Qualification for Licensure

    In order to qualify for licensure, all applicants should be required to pass written and practical examinations demonstrating knowledge in the following areas:

    (1) Fluent knowledge of the English language. In order to communicate effectively with western patients and referring physicians, fluency in English is essential. It is highly unethical to place patients in a situation in which they cannot communicate easily with the therapist, not obtain clear answers to their questions. In addition, Oriental non-physician acupuncturists may attempt to treat inappropriate symptoms unless they readily understand the specific basis for referral. Just as it is the responsibility of foreign trained physicians, nurses, psychologists, physical therapists, etc. to pass licensing board in English, so should acupuncture applicants be required to pass written and oral examinations in English. Although one may argue that a translator may obviate the need for this requirement, in practice it is not a satisfactory substitute, and in addition, such an arrangement is impossible to enforce.
    (2) Basic knowledge of anatomy and physiology. Applicants should demonstrate reasonable knowledge of the locations and functions of the major organs, blood vessels, and the peripheral nerve pathways. For example, the location of the lungs should be well known in order to generate respect for the possibility of pneumothorax following needle insertion in the chest or upper back areas.
    (3) Basic knowledge of western medicine. This would include familiarity with western diagnostic terms and disease entities. For example, acupuncturists should know the ramifications for treating a hemophiliac or a patient taking anticoagulants, and that electro-acupuncture across the chest is contraindicated in patients with cardiac pacemakers. In addition, knowledge of basic first aid techniques (e.g. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc.) should be required.
    (4) Basic knowledge of aseptic procedures. Although many Oriental practitioners do not believe in the “germ theory” of disease, we feel that this notion should be respected (pending evidence to the contrary), in order to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (e.g. hepatitis). Therefore, familiarity with the techniques and principles underlying the use of needle sterilization equipment and aseptic procedures must be demonstrated.
    (5) Basic knowledge of acupuncture. An appropriate examination can be prepared to determine expertise in the principles and practice of acupuncture. Although there are many different systems of acupuncture (e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese Kyodoraku, Do-In, Shiatsu, etc.), all are based on fundamental meridian theory, and the point combinations used to treat most illnesses are quite similar. This portion of the licensure should be very fundamental with an emphasis on clinical technique. It is with respect to this item that the Advisory Board can pass judgment on a case by case basis.

    E. “Grandfathering” of Applicants

    We are strongly opposed to “grandfathering” applicants simply because they have a variety of certificates, licenses, or other documentation certifying prior training and experience. First of all, such “evidence” is obtainable in Hong Kong and elsewhere for a small fee, and it is almost impossible to determine the true validity of such claims. Secondly, many “experience” acupuncturists who insist that certain problems can be treated only by causing third degree burns and nerve damage should not be permitted to practice simply because they have been doing so illegally for an arbitrary period of time. Thirdly, most competent and experienced acupuncturists can easily meet the requirements for licensure listed above. The Board of Medical Examiners should be permitted to waive certain requirements in exceptional cases.

    F. Standards of Practice

    Licensed non-physician acupuncturists should be permitted to treat patients only on the basis of the diagnosis and written referral of a licensed physician or dentist (who should be prohibited from fee-splitting). This will insure that primary diagnostic responsibility remains in the hands of appropriately trained medical practitioners. Specific standards of practice should be established to delineate clearly the techniques which are permissible (e.g. needle insertion, moxibustion, auriculotherapy, etc.). Finally, appropriate consent forms should be signed by patients, and detailed records of all procedures used should be kept for at least three years.

    G. Establishment of an Acupuncture Advisory Board

    Given the complexities of determining qualification for licensure and standards of practice, an Acupuncture Advisory Board to the Board of Medical Examiners should be appointed by the Governor. Although it has been said that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee, a judiciously selected board comprised of well known and highly respected professionals active in the area of acupuncture can be created. For the sake of all practicing acupuncture as a respected medical profession, it is important that the Board be composed of prestigious advocates of acupuncture who will win the support and cooperation of the medical community. Antagonism between the Advisory Board and the Board of Medical Examiners will serve no one’s interest. We recommend that the Advisory Board be composed as follows:

    (1) A representative of the Board of Medical Examiners, to serve as a liaison for the Advisory Board.
    (2) A representative of the California Medical Association, to serve as a liaison with the CMA.
    (3) Two physicians who are trained and experienced in the field of acupuncture.
    (4) One dentist who is trained and experienced in the field of acupuncture.
    (5) Five non-physician acupuncturists (with at least one Chinese, one Japanese, and one Korean member), all of whom meet the qualifications listed.
    (6) A non-physician research scientist who is trained and experienced in acupuncture, and who is readily knowledgeable of the clinical data concerning the proven effectiveness of acupuncture, as well as the potential complications of acupuncture.
    (7) A non-physician academician who is trained and experienced in acupuncture, and who is trained and experienced in educational testing and test design.

    H. Funds for Research

    In light of the fact that much remains to be discovered about the effectiveness, complications, and contraindications of acupuncture, a portion of the fees received from licenses should be distributed to approved, ongoing medical school research projects investigating acupuncture. All licensed acupuncturists should be required to report their results to the Advisory Board on a semiannual basis, which will provide important clinical research information.

    I. Urgency

    Although some may argue that legislation is urgently needed which will permit non-physician acupuncturists to practice immediately, we feel that the safety and best interests of the people of California are served only if all of the safeguards we have outlined above are enacted, no matter how long it takes to implement them. Acupuncture is now widely available throughout California, and although certain non-physician acupuncturists may achieve better therapeutic results than physicians now practicing, we believe that this is outweighed by the potential dangers which may result to the public if these safeguards are not provided

     

     

    http://book.th55.cn/wap.aspx?nid=8085&p=1&cp=3&cid=1414

    灸师李传真医生回忆,她毕业于新加坡针灸学院,l969年移民美国,开始在家里为病人针灸,效果不错,消息传开以后,病人越来越多,应接不暇。她是华裔针灸师中唯一能讲几句英语的中医师,患者基本上都是白人。但是因为针灸的合法性问题,租不到诊所。1972年终于遇到一位好心的西医,敢于将诊所出租给她使用半天,每天从早上5点到下午l点,要看70~80个病人。可是,好景不长,l974年4月16日,里根州长否决了针灸合法化提案的第二天,一大早警察就来到她的诊所,当着十几个病人的面就把她带走,罪名是“无照行医”。开庭那天,她的数百名病人到法庭抗议,说他们都是经过西医治疗无效,才转向针灸并得到了帮助,他们有权利选择针灸疗法。法庭面对挤满屋子的患者,不知所措。其实,就连法官的妻子都是李医生的患者,法官也知道李医生是个好人,最后只好裁定针灸只能作为实验项目进行,罚款500美元,将李医生释放。此事在当时成为轰动一时的社区新闻。
    直到第二年,新任州长布朗签署了加州第一个针灸合法化提案,李医生的“罪名”才得以洗清,500美元的罚款也退了回来。但不幸的是,租给她诊所的那位西医师,因为将诊所租给非法行医者,遭到了吊销行医执照的处罚。事情过了数年后,每当想起此事,李医生都感到内疚,对不起那位好心的医生[70]。
    现在很多人都不知道,70年代以前,美国医学界一直都十分保守,有很多所谓道德伦理的“行规”。如果一位西医将病人转给非正统医生,也就是没有医生执照的“治疗师”,相当于现在所说的替代补充医学行医者,那是要违反“行规”的,很可能会受到医学会伦理道德委员会的制裁。据1974年加州的一份《针灸新闻》(Acupuncture News,July l974)报道,当时曾有42位执照西医师联名上书旧金山法院,提出“针灸转诊请求”,信中说根据当时已有的科学证据,应当允许医生把适当的患者转给针灸师治疗,而最好的针灸师一般并不是执照医生。
    美国西医团体在历史上同其他非正统医学流派历来不合,甚至达到水火不相容的程度。比如,正统西医(MD)过去不承认整骨医生(DO)和整脊医生(DC)为医疗职业,西医主导的医院里不会雇用整骨医生或整脊医生,甚至开诊所也不会跟他们做邻居。后来这两个职业在教育上都做了重大的改革,整骨医生已经逐渐被西医接受,目前的地位已经接近正统的西医了,而整脊医生仍然同正统西医有很大的隔阂和距离。近年来随着医学和社会的变迁,替代补充医学逐渐流行,西医行规也与时俱进,一些过时的老行规也不复存在了。中医针灸作为一种来自东方的传统医学,当年遭受西医的强烈排斥并不奇怪,面对巨大的法律障碍,针灸出师不利,惨遭滑铁卢应在预料之中。
    由于法律不规范,在加州还出现过很可笑的情景。因为法律规定只有执照西医师(MD)才能扎针灸,但西医师又不懂针灸,所以只好请针灸师开针灸“处方”,将需要扎针的穴位贴上标签,然后由西医师扎针,执照西医师反倒成了无照针灸师的“小工”,不知真相的患者,搞不清究竟是谁在给谁打工。这种状态虽然没有持续很长时间,但在东西方针灸史上却留下了可笑的一笔。
    美国有些州早期的行医法律规定,只有执照医师才可以给病人扎针,或者针灸师只能在医学科研中心,在执照医师的“指导”下,才能从事针灸。这些“不平等待遇”,令从事针灸业者,尤其是华裔针灸师十分气愤,他们采用各种办法表达自己的不满,极力争取权益。最常用的方法包括上书国会议员、请患者写信、收集公众签名、游说政客、借助媒体呼吁、出庭抗争、聘请律师诉讼、甚至坚持秘密行医等等。华裔针灸师当时上书议员最常用的抱怨是,我教会了无数西医

     

    http://www.mingyi99.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&action=printable&tid=21053

    标题: 美國李醫師簡介(節錄轉載自Wikipedia) [打印本页]


    作者: Genie    时间: 2008-12-11 13:14:36     标题: 美國李醫師簡介(節錄轉載自Wikipedia)

    美國李醫師簡介(節錄轉載自Wikipedia) 來源:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Lee 美國的針灸醫師Miriam Lee 在加州是許多人心目中的英雄,也是美國針灸界的傳奇人物.她不但是針灸界的先鋒也是促使針灸治療在美國合法化的重要影響角色.Miriam Lee出生於中國大陸,於1947年離開中國.她原本是一名助產士後來成為針灸師.在到美國之前她在新加坡住了十七年,當她剛到加州時,針灸治療是非法的,所以她只好到工廠的裝配生產線工作,並在她家門外私下進行針灸治療.1974年她因無照行醫而被逮捕,在法庭上那些被她治療過的患者成群結隊地抗議,幾天之後,當時的加州州長雷根(Ronald Reagan)成立針灸醫療的合法化評估,兩年後Miriam Lee拿到了合法針灸醫師執照.據稱1970年至1980年間加州的針灸醫師至少有百分之七十是她的學生.李醫師以使用董氏奇穴而著名.(按:我認為奇穴翻譯成“Magic Points”並不恰當,因為奇穴乃正經之外的穴位而非“很神奇的穴位”)在她最忙的時候曾經一個小時看診十位患者,一週看診八十小時.(按:每天約看診約十二小時,無週休,真是忙碌到令人難以想像) 1980年成立的美國針灸協會,李醫師主持該協會自成立至1998年,目前李醫師已退休,和家人住在南加州.李醫師的主要著作有: Insights of A Senior Acupuncturist Master Tong’s Acupuncture 以上是Wikipedia對李醫師的介紹,因為看了呂道人前輩所翻譯的“美國李醫師董針醫案”而感興趣,因而上網做了些搜尋.李醫師在加州對針灸界所做的貢獻可謂不小,但是在巴頓格桑醫師(Dr. Palden Carson)的網站 http://www.worldtaa.org/tong.html 世界董氏針灸協會卻發現不同的聲音: 巴頓醫師說李醫師所著的《董氏針灸》一書(1992年美國出版)其內容大部份源自於巴頓醫師所翻譯,董景昌醫師所著,於1973年台灣出版的《董氏針灸正經奇穴學》.李醫師書中的前言內容還提到巴頓醫師的書是由巴頓醫師和李醫師兩人合著,然而這不是事實,巴頓醫師並不認識這位美國加州的李醫師,也不知道自己的老師有這麼一位私塾的學生,他問過同門師兄弟也沒有人聽過這位李師姊.(按:李醫師1964年到美國,離開中國後十七年皆在新加坡,並未說明何時習於董公,但李醫師用的確實是董氏奇穴) 因為尚未拜讀過巴頓醫師所翻譯的書,所以不知道李醫師的書是不是抄他的.但是僅僅是因為她而使針灸在美國合法化,這點貢獻就很偉大了.而且呂道長所翻譯的醫案的確非常實用,在此謝謝前輩的用心.

     

Read Full Post »

 TCM has been systematized and theorized in practice and has developed many methods to keep health during thousands of years. TCM has become the academic medicine instead of experiential medicine. TCM dated back to the period of The Huang Di. The NeiJing (The Yellow Emperor’s Canon of Internal Medicine) that is the greatest and the oldest Chinese medical classic is milestone, which has established the theoretical foundation for the medical system and philosophical theory. With development of Chinese nation, the theory of TCM is also constantly improving. The Han dynasty lived Zhang Zhongjing, and others, the greatest physicians of China. The Tang dynasty lived Sun Simiao named Herbal King. There have come into being four branches of TCM for the Jin-Yuan dynasty, each one with his characteristic and thesis, which improved theory of TCM infinitely. The Ming dynasty lived Li Shizhen and Zhang Jingyue, who promoted TCM development. The Wen Bing school was founding gradually in the Qing dynasty. TCM has taken shape unique its own system and theory in practice, which develops his own way according to internal theories. Since the beginning of the 19th century, with western medicine entering and developing rapidly in China, TCM development was affected severely, which was between the devil and the deep sea. After the Opium Wars in China, which made Chinese to have falsity belief that TCM is unscientific, feudal. Therefore, TCM had always been in the position being investigated, examined, queried and reformed, and developed on thin ice. After the foundation of the People’s Republic of China, the Government affirms the policy to protect TCM. Then, it developed steadily. However, in the latest 20 years, the policy of the Party Central Committee and the gist of the Constitution haven’t been carried out conscientiously, TCM has been in a difficult position. Over the past thousands years, TCM has developed a set of both practical and advanced, universal and thorough, and systematic health care system, which is notably characterized by simplicity, 5 convenience, affordability, safety, efficacy and effectiveness. TCM is thriving and prosperous in future, and it could make “health for one” true!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts