Library

In the world, matters that are debated solely through words and lack a means to verify their truthfulness make it difficult to determine right from wrong. However, in medicine, there are therapeutic effects that can serve as evidence, making it easiest to discern the true from the false. For practitioners, self-assessment of their skill level is also most straightforward. Yet, both those seeking medical care and the practitioners themselves remain confused and fail to distinguish between them. Why is this? In ancient times, when herbs were administered, unless dealing with chronic or entrenched diseases, the effects were very rapid. The *Huangdi Neijing* (Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon) states: "One dose brings improvement, two doses bring cure." It also says: "Sleep is achieved as soon as the cup is put down," indicating extremely swift efficacy. The *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Damage Disorders) states: "If cured after one administration, there is no need to finish the entire decoction." This shows that ancient physicians diagnosed diseases precisely and prescribed medications appropriately; there were no cases where effectiveness was not seen within one or two doses. Therefore, the method of treating disease must begin by establishing a medical record (Yi An), specifying the diagnosis, the source formula, which herb in the formula specifically treats which symptom, and which classic text serves as the theoretical basis. After taking this medication, one should note at what time specific symptoms subside; if there is no effect, one must seek the reason for the ineffectiveness and reconsider methods that will surely work. If the expected effect does not occur but other effects arise, one must investigate the cause of these other effects; or if new symptoms appear or the condition worsens, one must investigate the cause of the harm and learn from it deeply. Then, one should extensively consult medical texts until a complete cure is ensured. If the disease inherently cannot be cured quickly, or only allows for minor improvement, or is incurable, a medical record must still be established in advance, clearly stating these conditions, before prescribing a formula. One must not treat recklessly. Through such self-examination, errors will naturally be known; coupled with diligent study, one's medical skill will improve daily. Modern practitioners do the exact opposite. They memorize only a few formulas and select only a few herbs, applying them indiscriminately to any disease or syndrome to shirk responsibility. If they occasionally achieve an effect, they claim credit; if ineffective or fatal, they blame the natural progression of the disease. Patients' families accept this as normal custom without question. Occasionally, patients ask practitioners before taking medication what the expected outcome will be. The practitioner replies, "Let us see how it goes after administration; how could one predict in advance?" The patient's family accepts this meekly, considering themselves foolish for asking. How ignorant! If practitioners used this method for self-reflection, they would certainly become good doctors; if patients used this method to evaluate practitioners, they would certainly not be misled by incompetent doctors. Both parties would benefit.