<p>New Delhi: A section of Ayurveda practitioners and professors has raised questions on a central regulatory agency’s decision to start Ayurvedic super-speciality courses in six medical disciplines including oncology and hepatology, arguing that “traditional system has no role in speciality and super-speciality areas.”</p> <p>“Ayurveda is an ancient science that developed when the methods of collecting and evaluating evidence were nascent. Its understanding of life-processes in health and illness was sketchy and often conjectural,” said G L Krishna, an Ayuvedic physician and a scholar at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru.</p><p>His comments in a British Medical Journal blogpost comes six weeks after the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine notified introduction of Doctorate of Medicine (DM) courses on Ayurvedic medicines in six disciplines as part of a new notification on regulatory standards for post graduate Ayurvedic education.</p>.Bengaluru: PM digitally launches Ayurveda Centre of Excellence for diabetes in IISc .<p>The Ayurvedic DM courses would be offered in psychiatry, reproductive medicine, orthopaedics, oncology, gerontology and hepatology.</p><p>"Ayurveda does not have a major role in speciality and super speciality areas. It is good as a primary care system. There are, of course, no exclusive Ayurvedic treatises extant on psychiatry, hepatology etc,” Krishna told DH.</p><p>Even in primary care, traditional medicines should be used “after careful safety netting and with scientific prudence”, he said.</p><p>“Unfortunately, the Ayush community by and large does not appear to believe that unbiased research and experimental/ clinical evidence are needed. Such courses, without the due academic vigour, would do more damage not only for the patient care but for Ayurveda itself,” commented Subhash Lakhotia, a distinguished professor at Banaras Hindu University, who researched on Ayurveda.</p><p>“Conceiving a super speciality DM Hepatology course based on a system that had only a vague understanding of liver functions and pathologies is a result of policy-makers’ misdirected zeal,” Krishna wrote.</p><p>“Likewise misdirected are plans to start a DM Oncology course based on ancient texts that had not the remotest idea of cancer as a generic pathology. Parity between systems does not come by merely mimicking the academic hierarchy of modern medicine. Medicine is not mimicry.”</p><p>Kishor Patwardhan, a professor of Ayurveda at BHU said the current level of evidence was insufficient to justify such courses.</p><p>“You start super-speciality courses where there is overwhelming information about a particular subject, which can’t be contained in a single discipline. It's not the other way when you create the courses first and then look for information,” he said.</p><p>“The current level of Ayurvedic knowledge in these disciplines can easily be included in existing post-graduate courses.”</p>
<p>New Delhi: A section of Ayurveda practitioners and professors has raised questions on a central regulatory agency’s decision to start Ayurvedic super-speciality courses in six medical disciplines including oncology and hepatology, arguing that “traditional system has no role in speciality and super-speciality areas.”</p> <p>“Ayurveda is an ancient science that developed when the methods of collecting and evaluating evidence were nascent. Its understanding of life-processes in health and illness was sketchy and often conjectural,” said G L Krishna, an Ayuvedic physician and a scholar at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru.</p><p>His comments in a British Medical Journal blogpost comes six weeks after the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine notified introduction of Doctorate of Medicine (DM) courses on Ayurvedic medicines in six disciplines as part of a new notification on regulatory standards for post graduate Ayurvedic education.</p>.Bengaluru: PM digitally launches Ayurveda Centre of Excellence for diabetes in IISc .<p>The Ayurvedic DM courses would be offered in psychiatry, reproductive medicine, orthopaedics, oncology, gerontology and hepatology.</p><p>"Ayurveda does not have a major role in speciality and super speciality areas. It is good as a primary care system. There are, of course, no exclusive Ayurvedic treatises extant on psychiatry, hepatology etc,” Krishna told DH.</p><p>Even in primary care, traditional medicines should be used “after careful safety netting and with scientific prudence”, he said.</p><p>“Unfortunately, the Ayush community by and large does not appear to believe that unbiased research and experimental/ clinical evidence are needed. Such courses, without the due academic vigour, would do more damage not only for the patient care but for Ayurveda itself,” commented Subhash Lakhotia, a distinguished professor at Banaras Hindu University, who researched on Ayurveda.</p><p>“Conceiving a super speciality DM Hepatology course based on a system that had only a vague understanding of liver functions and pathologies is a result of policy-makers’ misdirected zeal,” Krishna wrote.</p><p>“Likewise misdirected are plans to start a DM Oncology course based on ancient texts that had not the remotest idea of cancer as a generic pathology. Parity between systems does not come by merely mimicking the academic hierarchy of modern medicine. Medicine is not mimicry.”</p><p>Kishor Patwardhan, a professor of Ayurveda at BHU said the current level of evidence was insufficient to justify such courses.</p><p>“You start super-speciality courses where there is overwhelming information about a particular subject, which can’t be contained in a single discipline. It's not the other way when you create the courses first and then look for information,” he said.</p><p>“The current level of Ayurvedic knowledge in these disciplines can easily be included in existing post-graduate courses.”</p>
