Talk:Health science

message: Bold text
-Removed vandalism-
Libertarian99 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

message: In the UK, we have a clear definition of a healthcare scientist - they are an applied scientist who uses their skills for the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients (as opposed, say, to other clinicians - such as doctors & nurses  and to those scientists who are involved purely in research into conditions, rather than direct care for individuals who have particular conditions. Healthcare science are the disciplines that healthcare scientists practices. 
This article fails to clearly define health science and the definitions early in the page seem to drift around between applied science, life science and a variety of practices which may or may not fit various definitions of health care. 
I note that there are very few references in this page - certainly none to the fundamental definitions that should be used in an encyclopaedic article. As such I've tagged the article unreferenced.
In addition, I have a great problem with this article containing references to a variety of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) practices (see comments below).  If you refer to the wikipedia alternative medicine page it defines CAM as 'treatments not proven using scientific methods'.  So this area of intervention is - by that definition - not scientific. So it's hard to see why this material should be on a page about a sort of science.
I think there are much more appropriate and clearly-defined places for much of the content in this article and will start to rebuild this page in the near future if people don't object strongly to this.
I know this is just my individual take on this article - and may relate to my UK background. So I'm grateful for any thoughts and comments people have before I start changing things
Jpmaytum (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental sourcing and definition for page

message: Can we give this article a new title? I propose "Health Systems". That would remove the obvious POV (to me, anyway, and probably others who are familiar with non-western and alternative health systems). Then each tradition can be split into subcategories, rather than allowing western traditions to dominate. My POV, for the record: Western medicine and "applied" sciences are no more science than anything else which can be proven with scientific methods, i.e. the efficacy of accupuncture treaments vs. conventional acceptance of treatments like lobotomies in the 20th century. Admiralblur 22:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title?

message: As evidenced by the large section entitled "Health delivery" and the long lists at the end, the article is heavy on discussing the application of health-related knowledge but severly lacking in discussing the acquisition of that knowledge. Any thoughts on how to expand this? Edwardian 20:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two parts to health science

message: Someone has included things like "Christian Science." These might be approaches some people choose use in pursuit of health, but they are not health sciences. Their exclusion from science seems very obvious, so I'm removing them immediately. I'm new at Wikipedia editing, but I'm acting in good faith that this is appropriate Wikipedia etiquette. If this action is disputable, I'd appreciate a message or further discussion.
I would also suggest revising the "Health Practices" section. Although the complementary health practices list could indeed be considered "health practices," I think it is inappropriate in the context of the "Health science" article, especially in light of the definition on the first line of the article: "Health science or biomedical science is the applied science dealing with health." Many of the practices on this page are not sciences, despite some of them being nominally "-ologies" or "Science." Perhaps we could stick with actual sciences, and in the interest of completeness, perhaps mention that some people may disregard health sciences in favour of non-scientific/non-medical treatments, and provide a link to a category more appropriate to those treatments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertarian99 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing reference to new age/spiritual procedures