What is it like to be a medicine intern?

Is the term "Western medicine" either a misnomer or an anachronism?

• Given that Western medicine as it is normally used seems to be completely divorced from traditional Western medicine (leeches, humours), is this term a misnomer? I generally take Western medicine to mean science-based medicine (penicillin, chemotherapy), but that would seem to suggest that Western culture has a monopoly on science.  While a scientific approach to medicine may have more roots in the West (starting around The Enlightenment), it's truly a global tradition at this point. Furthermore, it's usually used in contrast to Eastern medicine (e.g., Chinese medicine, or Ayurvedic medicine.  In this case, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison since those are traditional medicinal paradigms that have ancient roots, and Western medicine in this context is invariably referring to something modern) or alternative medicine (which often includes medicines with a long history of use in the West, such as Aloe vera). All of this leads me to believe that the term itself is sort of useless and misleading at best and mildly offensive at worst.

• Answer:

  I feel that for conversational purposes, Western medicine is a convenient, yet inaccurate, term.  Generally speaking, those who actually practice or academically study "traditional" forms of "Western" medicine usually refer to the specific tradition (i.e. Eclectic Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclectic_medicine). I tend to gravitate to the term "biomedicine" and "biomedical model" when talking about modern Western medicine.  I don't feel that "science-based" is wholly descriptive since it implies guaranteed, methodologically validated efficacy when the reality is that there are too many instances of faulty or corrupted research. Additionally, there are botanicals and botanical formulas that have strong scientific-evidence behind them but would not be used in a physician's office or hospital. In journal articles it is common to see Chinese research hospitals using IV or injection as a method of formula delivery or clinics using granule extracts processed using advanced pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment. This is certainly a biomedical approach.  However, this is perhaps done with a formula from the Shang Han Lun, a medical text that was compiled in 220 A.D.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_Han_Lun Formulas that have been in clinical use for two thousand years and have scientifically-demonstrable efficacy (have gone through controlled clinical trials) are still not "biomedicine" -- they remain Traditional Chinese Medicine. The formulas were composed to treat patterns of signs and symptoms, not biological structures and physiological processes. [In my view, strong empirical traditions of a formula's use can carry as much weight as a series of short-lived scientific trials.] If a botanical compound from that formula is found to have a desirable biomedical effect, then that compound is (or can be) isolated and enters the drug discovery pipeline.  This is what the field of pharmacognosy does.  Then that compound becomes used in the biomedical model. Famous examples are pseudoephidrene and Tamilflu.