欢迎访问中国中西医结合杂志！

对2011年《中医杂志》（共计24期）“临床论著”一栏统计后发现：以疾病为研究对象151篇，使用西医病名145篇，约占9603%，是使用中医病名（6篇）的24倍，中医病名已基本不再为中医师使用。以新世纪（第二版）全国高等中医药院校教材《中医内科学》为例，发现中医病名逻辑混乱，病、证、症不分。其言疾病时，时言“疾病”，时言“病证”。在各论中有些疾病直接以“× 证”命名，定义具体疾病时以症状命名者多言“病证”，以症状或有明显症状色彩的术语作为疾病名称者31种，占所列52种中医常见疾病的596%。使用中医病名在临床实践中存在误诊失诊、误治失治的医疗风险，对于危重疾病中医不能识其险、化其危，对于慢性疾病不能早发现、早防治。鉴于中医对疾病的认识已明显滞后于临床实践及国内中西医结合的发展，建议西为中用，尽可能使用西医病名，其根本原因在于与中医相比，西医对疾病的病位、病因、病理、诊治、预防等形成的认识更加清晰、客观，对疾病的分类、命名是世界卫生组织和各成员国（包括中国）共同协作的结果而更具普适性。如何借用？还有待大家立足现在（尤其是临床），借鉴传统，面向未来，进行踏实地工作。借用西医病名有助于中医对脏腑的认识回归其本原，临床上有助于病证结合、病方结合的深入，并将有力推动中医辨证的客观化、微观化，产生新理论、新认识，反过来再推动临床的发展。在这一领域，有望使中国医学在世界上占据重要的一席之地，为维护世界人民的健康做出自己的贡献。

英文摘要:

The statistical survey of "Clinical Articles"， one column of Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine （24 volumes in total） showed that， of the 151 academic exploration on diseases， Western disease （WM） names were used in 145 articles， constituting 9603% of the entire column. Obviously， Chinese medicine （CM） disease names were not basically used by CM physicians. Taking Chinese Internal Medicine （2nd edition）， a national textbook for students in CM universities， as an example， we could find that the use of disease names was in a chaos logically， disease， syndrome， and symptom were not used clearly. In the general knowledge part， when mentioning a disease， the book sometimes used "disease"， sometimes "disease syndrome". In the classified parts， some diseases were simply named as "A or B syndrome"， and when talking about a specific disease， it referred to the symptom based disease as a kind of "disease syndrome". Throughout the whole book， the disease names named after symptoms or heavily colored by symptoms amounted to 31， accounting for 596% of the listed 52 common diseases. In clinical practices， using CM disease names ran the risk of making wrong diagnosis or failing to diagnose patients in time， and therefore， leading to improper treatment or loss of treatment time. For critical diseases， these names can′t reveal the serious situations and help to get rid of possible dangers. For chronic diseases， using these names can′t lead to early recognition and prevention of diseases. Considering that CM disease names can′t go with clinical practices， and lag behind the development of integrative medicine， the author suggested that we should borrow as many WM disease names as possible in CM， because when compared with CM， WM has a much clearer and more objective knowledge of the location， cause， mechanisms， diagnosis， treatment， and prevention of diseases. The classification and naming of diseases in WM is the result of negotiation of WHO and its member countries （including China）， and therefore， more generally accepted. How to do that? We should start from the present clinical practice， refer to the tradition， face the future， and work hard. Borrowing WM disease names is of great significance. It will help to bring the theory of Zang Fu organs back to its origin， clinically help to deepen the combination of disease and syndrome， disease and formula， promote the objectification and micronization of syndrome differentiation in CM， and possibly bring about new theories of CM which will in return promote clinical development. CM will be able to occupy an important position in the field of world medicine and make its own contributions to the health of the global population.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader