Classical texts insist that deciding what to treat first is itself a clinical judgement, and one of the harder ones. Root and branch describe cause and manifestation; acute and chronic describe urgency. The four combinations give four different orders of work.
The rule that comes out of it is stated plainly in the tradition: in sudden, severe situations address the branch first, and in slow, long-standing ones address the root. The reason is not philosophical. If someone is in acute distress, the acute problem is what threatens them now, whatever its origin.
This principle has a direct modern reading. Sudden severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, weakness on one side of the body, or heavy bleeding are branch emergencies. Nothing about long-term constitutional work changes that, and no constitutional theory should be allowed to delay emergency care.
古籍坚持认为，先处理什么是临床判断本身，而且是较难的判断之一。标本说的是本因与表象，缓急说的是紧迫程度。四个组合给出四种不同的先后次序。
由此得出的规则，传统里说得很直白：卒病、急症先治其标，久病、缓症治其本。理由并不是玄学。一个人正处在急性痛苦中，无论根源是什么，眼下威胁他的就是那个急的问题。
这条原则有一个直接的现代读法：突发剧烈胸痛、呼吸困难、身体一侧无力、或大量出血，都属于「标」的急症。任何长期的调养计划都不改变这一点，也不应让任何理论延误急诊。
35 related entries.