Talk:Medicine/Archive 1

message: Hmm, strange, I see lot of branches of medicine have been deleted, Phoniatrics, for example (my addition). Why? Ok, it's not a major branch of medicine, more like a sub-branch of something, but still it *is* medicine and it should be mentioned somewhere.
In addition, the organisation of this page is mess. Alas, I don't have the time to do anything to it.   --Tbackstr
*Checking on phoniatrics - You are talking about speech pathology.  This is a field practiced by non-physicians, but of great importance in rehabilitation.  It is not medicine.  The training does not include a number of fileds, such as pharmacology, general anatomy, epidemiology, microbiology, and other courses that define practitioners of medicine.  Interesting issus is how to include this topic, as it is important to medicine to say what it is not and to include closely related fields as this is. Kd4ttc 18:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoniatrics

message: The current medicine article should become a disambiguation page with links to Medicine (health science) and Medicine (shamanism).--NetEsq 4:19pm Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
Nah.  Medicine (shamanism) is misnamed.  That article ought to be Shamanism.  The discussion of medicine in shamanism should be a part of that article, and other aspects of shamanism need to be described there. Kd4ttc 20:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamanism 

message: There is no page titled List of medical topics, with links to all Wikipedia articles on medical topics.  If such a page existed, then one could click on "related changes" on that page and see all editing of pages on medical topics that appear on the list.  This has been done for astronomy, physics, mathematics, religion (although that one is far from complete so far), music (I think) and some other topics.
BTW, would someone with expertise in medicine please fix the article titled diagnosis? Michael Hardy 01:42 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
:I've started a page at that title; in an attempt to keep it relatively brief, I started it with a List of Other Medical Lists.  :)  The list itself seems to be breaking down mainly into fields of study/practice (medical "ologies", which may merit their own list), and generic terms -- Drug, Symptom, Epidemic, etc.  I've tried to keep specific disorders, treatments, etc. to their own lists.  Are there any Wikiprojects focused on medicine?  I didn't see any in my (admittedly brief) survey, and many of these lists and articles seem pretty haphazard -- could definitely use some loving and consistent attention.  I'm only a reasonably well-educated laywoman, but I'll be happy to help.  Catherine 01:02 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
::I'm currently trying to reorganise the medicine article a little, which means essentially to move out those endless link lists to individual articles (see below). Not done yet, but I think your list will help (thank you!). Generally, medical topics on Wikipedia seem to deserve a little more attention, and certainly some coherent structure. Specifically, I believe that there should be templates for pages on: diseases, medical procedures, drugs, and fields of medicine. I could think of some formats for these and will, hopefully, write some proposals soon. If you know of any other projects, please let me know, and I suggest that things could be discussed here for a while before moving on to a wikiproject page. Kosebamse 12:00 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
----
Article is still messy and too long, tried to reorganize it a little. Can anyone think of a reasonable place where to leave all the details about organs etc.?Kosebamse 09:34 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)
: I´ve started moving those long and unreadable link lists to specific articles and replaced some of these lists with short definitions. Will return later to this work, but there´s still much to do, help from others would be great. Kosebamse 13:56 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
----
Are we sure that "most countries" request diplomas and have a medical board? The majority of countries are 3rd world! 212.198.0.93 18:19, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discussion 

message: We need to do something with Transfusion Medicine.  It the US that field is practiced by pathologists.  I noted the point in the short article on it that in the UK it is part of clinical immunology.  In the US Transfusion medicine is not considered clinical medicine, it is thought of as a supporting laboratory function of the blood bank.  Kd4ttc 18:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any advice I moved Trans. Med to clincal labs and added the term blood bank.Kd4ttc 03:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The term Blood bank was expunged. I put it back in.  In the US if you call a hospital and ask for the Transfusion Medicine department you will get a pretty confused response.  The lab that handles blood products in the US is called the Blood Bank.  Before we get in an edit war on this minor point, I'd like to have folks explain the Transfusion Medicine issue - I expect in international usage there is a difference from US standard usage.  S. Holland, M.D.  Kd4ttc 23:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Gedday, sorry that was me. I didnt realise it had an 'owner' or i'd have asked! I don't think blood bank should be here because (a) 'blood bank' is not really a branch of medicine but one of the smaller branches of 'haematology' or 'immunology??' <>(b) there is not even a blood bank stub! <> (c) this page is going to get way too long without very tight discipline (d) there are many other places that will link to blood bank... including but not limited to hospital, medical laboratory, transfusion, haematologyand immunology... does that sound reasonable (i think (c) is my major reason) best wishes   Erich gasboy 02:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Erich:  Thanks for your comments.  Turns out there is not really a branch of medicine called transfusion medicine.  There are no transfusion specialists, no fellowships in transfusion, no departments in medical school.  However, transfusions are important.  Blood banking is more or less recognized as an important function in a hospital, and is one of the sections in any hospital. It is actually run by pathologists rather than hematologists. Perhaps Transfusion medicine really needs to be dropped.  I'm thinking is is such an inherent part of the lab of any hospital it serves |Erich gasboy]] 18:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfusion Medicine

message: New topic suggested by above discussion.
Oooh - i didn't explain my self properly!! my point is that this is bigger than medical care - this is about 'health care' - I think this section belongs in health care somewhere? what do you think? did you see my comments on allied health below (as well). best wishes e --Erich gasboy 16:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Delivery of Medical Care

message: Pathology needs to get into clinical medicine, or at least somewhere more than basic science.  Pathology is interesting in that it is only branch of basic science that has a clinical science.  The pathology societies understand this issue.  Also, pathologists run the path lab, the autopsy service, the clinical labs, and bloodbank. Kd4ttc 18:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how pathology was treated.Kd4ttc 03:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathology

message: I put physiatry back.  Many PM&R practioners prefer to call themselves Physiatrists.  The professional organizations of PM&R variously call themselves as being an organzation of people practicing Physiatry or Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  The numbers are mostly the latter, but in talking about their field referring to themselves as Physiatrists is common.  
As an example, here is an article reference: 
:DeLisa, J.A., Foye, P.M., Jain, S.S., Kirshblum, S., & Christodoulou, C. (2001) Measuring professionalism in a physiatry residency training program. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 225-229.
Here you have a referral to the field of PM&R as physiatry in the journal PM&R.
Kd4ttc 18:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hereby submit the Google searches: "rehabilitation medicine" and "physiatry". All the rehabilitation doctors I know do not call themselves Physiatrists. I think to remove the term "Rehabilitation medicine" and instead put in "Physiatry" is misleading as "Rehabilitation medicine" is by far the more used term. Alex.tan 15:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Alex!  Yeah, I did the same two searches and there are hits in both places.  I see both terms used.  Physiatrist is what some rehab docs call themselves.  It is a more formal term, much like I'll say I am a Gastroenterologist, but when asked what I practice I may say GI.  Note in the reference above in the Journal Am. J PM&R that the article title refers to "physiatry training program" which I think is a good example on how the name of the field is in contrast to the name of what they do.  Initially, the term physiatry was placed here myself, and on that edit it was listed as "Physiatry, also known as Rehabilitation Medicine", so I think I'm not a compleat idiot in regard to usage.  I agreed with you rehab medicine is in more common use, both in the US and in Australia, as you point out.  When I looked up a number of the sites on Google I saw the term Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in the text of the sites I went to, so I edited that to the primary term for the field.   I set it up so there is a link to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with the physiatry linked to the same thing with the verticle line thing used to rename the link.  Steve Holland, M.D.  Kd4ttc 22:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Physiatry / Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

message: The section on the allied health field stating how many groups come together was well stated.  Medicine is not just doctors, it is the way of putting care to patients.  This depends on the allied professions. The section was well written and provided direction to other articles for the interested reader.  It needs to go back.  Kd4ttc 22:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied health field section and movement to its own page

message: Finally, there is a "blue box" that unites medical topics on Wikipedia. Please send comments to me about inclusion/exclusion (which was a tad arbitrary) and the design, as well as implementation. This has been long overdue. Please see the WIKIDOC page, a medical Wikipedia clique in formation, dedicated to raising the level of the medical side of Wikipedia.  JFW | T@lk 02:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this really reflect common usuage amongst doctors? Surely it is not medicine which divides into physcians and surgeons but healthcare which divides into medicine and surgery?  BozMo
Thanks for your comments, BozMo. Having worked in hospitals as a doctor for a few years, it has become absolutely clear to me that there is a strong distinction between both the way of working and the way of thinking of internists and surgeons. All the other fields occupy their own niches and often have to defend themselves against intrusions by both "mega" specialisms (e.g. ophthalmologists needing theatre time in a general hospital). Could you be more specific about your objections?  JFW | T@lk 11:10, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE BLUE BOX 

message: One of the contibutors {Not to mention names...} added a number of Peds subspecialities.  I agree those exist. {I didn't know our existence was in question, but thanks for the reassurance.}.  I suspect there is not enough interest in making all those stand alone. {Stand alone where?}  In GI the peds diseases are very similar to the adult, but differences exist that make a section in the GI article needed.  My proposal is to not have separate peds subspeciality articles,{Sorry I already wrote one} but to put sections in the appropriate adult medicine articles. {See, that's the problem--- they should be just "medicine" articles, not "adult medicine" articles.}  Of course, Neonatology probably needs its own section. {Those guys always think they're special.}  Kd4ttc 23:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognize that this is just idle lounge chitchat, with amusement rather than rancor the dominant tone, but you actually didn't respond to my questions and suggestions.
Please:
1. Reread my reply above.
2. Did you look at the pediatric endocrinology article? Do you think it a totally pointless waste of time and electrons? I have actually had people ask me what the specialty was when they showed up for an appointment or when they asked me what I did. And before you answer, keep in mind that it is half the size of an article detailing the use of umlauts in the names of heavy metal bands that was nominated for a feature article--- it's not like the bar is real high here...
3. I didn't simply stick it into the general endocrinology article because it seemed like it would be a disproportionately big subsection, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. Is that what you want?
4. I agreed 100% with you that we should cover childhood and adult aspects of diseases in the same article. 
5. And as far as gasboy's complaint about the length of the list, it is no longer than the list of internal medicine specialties, so why one and not the other? OK, because I rarely pick fights in the doctor's lounge, here's my proposal: list the organ specialties with a mention of both child and adult versions as a separate list (not two lists) outside of internal medicine and pediatrics.  
See what an irenic kinda person I can be?  Alteripse 21:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pediatric subspecialities