This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
I accept this policy
Find out more here
It is Modern to be Traditional: Tradition and Tibetan Medicine in the European Context
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.
1573-420X
You must be logged in to use this functionality
Europe takes a rather cautious approach to herbal medicines. Traditional Herbal Medicines are regulated via European Union-directive 2001/83/EC, especially articles 16a‐h. For Asian medicines, this new regulation poses several challenges, specifically the requirements on medicine ‘quality’ and on requirements of a proven record of at least 15 years of tradition or use within the EU. This makes it very hard for most of the medicines of Asian tradition to enter the EU market as medicines. The notion of ‘tradition’ in this directive may have been taken from a definition given by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on Traditional Medicine or from the existing label Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Both concepts, although labelled as ‘traditional’, link themselves to a modernised and standardised practice of complementary medicine in a globalised setting. This essay investigates the function of the label ‘traditional’ in the European frame in connection with Tibetan medicine.
Abstract
Europe takes a rather cautious approach to herbal medicines. Traditional Herbal Medicines are regulated via European Union-directive 2001/83/EC, especially articles 16a‐h. For Asian medicines, this new regulation poses several challenges, specifically the requirements on medicine ‘quality’ and on requirements of a proven record of at least 15 years of tradition or use within the EU. This makes it very hard for most of the medicines of Asian tradition to enter the EU market as medicines. The notion of ‘tradition’ in this directive may have been taken from a definition given by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on Traditional Medicine or from the existing label Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Both concepts, although labelled as ‘traditional’, link themselves to a modernised and standardised practice of complementary medicine in a globalised setting. This essay investigates the function of the label ‘traditional’ in the European frame in connection with Tibetan medicine.
Full text loading...
back to top