17 August 1996

Use of the Chinese title “Ysang” allows no confusion to the public

(Keywords:- chiropractors, title, Ysang, confusion, registration) 

          There is a vast difference between “naturopath have a right to call himself “doctor” as ruled by the court recently, and naturopaths possibly breaching the law in using the Chinese title “ysang” (醫生) -- the original complaint leading to this recent magistrate case. The English title “doctor” is not synonymous with “medical practitioners” and could well be a title for a “doctorate degree”. Yet, the Chinese title “ysang” in the public’s eyes indicates people who practise conventional Western medicine. Any person who is not a registered medical practitioner adopting the title of “ysang” therefore mislead the public by purporting to practice Western medicine.

          No one should dispute the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, and the wisdom of the court. Yet, this recent  ruling brings home fallacies for which answers are wanting and to which there could be a case for review or even appeal. Was it a fallacy in prosecution or court ruling? For whilst the complaint is on the possibility of breaching the law by unlawful use of the Chinese title “ysang”, the ruling seems to be that the person concerned has the right to use the English title “doctor”. Regrettably this “mistake” has happened once too often to the utter confusion of the public.

          If it was the true intention of the court to give blessings to chiropractors to use the Chinese titles “jet quat san geng for ysang” (脊骨神科經醫生) or “ysang” (醫生), Government has a lot to explain.

          In February 1993, when the Chiropractors Registration Bill resumed second reading in the Legislative Council after lengthy scrutiny by legislators, the Secretary for Health and Welfare stated categorically: “ I have been assured by (LegCo) members ......... that the term ‘jet yi’ (脊醫) would not and should not confuse the public, nor be mis-interpreted as abbreviation for ‘jet quat san geng for ysang’ (脊骨神科經醫生).I respectfully defer to Members’ views.”

          Similarly, the Chiropractors Council’s Secretary wrote on January 1994 to its members stating the legal advice that: “it is not permissible for a chiropractor to be presented as ‘ysang’ (醫生) or ‘jet quat san geng for ysang’ (脊骨神科經醫生) whether they are intended as courtesy titles or otherwise.”

          Nobody disputes that chiropractors are part of the health care team. They function by manipulating the spine and joints of patients based on the theory and belief that such would increase the resistance of the body to combat diseases.

          On the other hand, medical practitioners diagnose  diseases, attack them with drugs, surgeries and otherwise. This is what the public perceive a “ysang” to be. Any other persons whose practice fall outside such ambit but call themselves “ysang” would therefore be misleading the public. More, it may cause possible delay in seeking the required or originally desired treatments.

          That persons not registered as medical practitioners should not use the title “ysang” is therefore not just about a dispute on the right to use a title, but about patients’ safety and well being which any law must strife to protect.

          The call by the Chiropractors Association for a speedy registration of members is to be applauded. It is however ironic that whilst the ordinance was passed in February 1993, and a Chiropractors Council functioned in October 1993 -- with most members belonging to that profession -- three years down the line, proper registration is still nowhere in sight!

          What about the monitoring and control of numerous other self claimed health care workers which are mushrooming? Any procedure aiming at dealing with life must be properly regulated and guided -- be they claimed panacea for cancer, laser treatment for cosmetic effect, minor surgery for fat reduction. The saga of hydrogen peroxide ingestion which Government so far still fails to control should never have been allowed to occur let alone repeated.

          It is irresponsible of Government to dump it all on public education and leaves the burden on the people to make their own choice.

          Years ago, Government ignored calls to monitor and register Chinese Traditional Medicine practice until it was too late -- when life is loss. Life is too precious to be left in the hands of complacency!

(Hongkong Standard)