The WHO has edited and published what it calls a "Standard Terminology" (sort of a dictionary) pertaining to oriental medicine:
"WHO International Standard Terminologies On Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region"
That is just fine. AND all the listed editors are without question highly decorated academics. THEY are surely better educated and much more knowledgeable than I will ever be.
Nevertheless .. I cannot help but feel somewhat disappointed by this work - at least regarding some terms.
"1.6.84 瘀血 = STATIC blood = a pathological product of blood stagnation, including extravasated blood and the blood circulating sluggishly or blood congested in a viscus, all of which may turn into pathogenic factor, the same as blood stasis or stagnant blood."
The rendering of what the Japanese pronounce "oketsu" as "static blood" is to my taste highly inappropriate. EVERY persons working in the medical field and MANY laymen know perfectly well what happens, when the blood STOPS (completely) to move = becomes "static" (static means NOT moving).
The tissues deprived of their blood supply will quickly develop functional disorders and not much later DIE!!! Typical example: myocardial infarct.
But ... THAT is NOT what is meant when people talk in oriental medicine about "oketsu"!
I myself are not an academic and definitely not qualified to argue with these editors and propose a more suitable term.
Yet, I think, these people SHOULD come up with something more appropriate and as it is, all those academic decorations have produced unsatisfatory results.
In particular when one considers what is being attempted here: facilitation of communication between completely different cultures and concepts.
I expect, I will make myself many new enemies with this statement ...