Talk:Medicine/Archive 3

message: The practice of modern medicine has been criticised for many other things than listed here.  Its tendency to use government to establish monopoly control over procedures and chemicals.  Its tendency to substitute the values of the practitions for those of patient, withholding information (more common in Japan), making decisions about what quality of life is worthwhile, discrimination against the elderly, making cost effective decisions instead of lowest risk ones, other the other hand practicing expensive "defensive" medicine, assuming patients are lying and order unnecessary tests as when ER patient with urinary tract infection reports no extra marital sexual relations, substituting their own assessment of the facts such as when Thomas Morris was denied access to anti-biotics because he suspected he had been exposed to anthrax (he had been and subsequently died) denying patients a basic right to self defense, etc.--Silverback 20:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of medicine sections seems short and weak 

message: JD, that link you removed is spam in a sense, but does contain a useful collection of links. I thought about deleting it a couple weeks ago when first posted but decided to let it stay after I looked at it. I wish the poster would discuss here, but I vote for retention. (and I have no connection whatsover with the site) alteripse 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is spam, I find this link extremely useful and believe it should be put back. --Eleassar777 13:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, boss. I agree it's worth nothing but the links. (smile) alteripse 20:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent removal of link 

message: Why are you deleting the important information about importance of the doctor/patient relationship to the patient, and replacing it with unfounded overgeneralizations such as the relationship being "central" to medicine, and introducing a novel "teaching" role.  I don't know what country you have experienced medicine in, but most doctors have little to no time to "teach", and in many cultures they jealously guard their knowledge and withhold information from patients.--Silverback 13:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alteripse presented the arguments very well, so read below. --Eleassar777 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No she didn't, perhaps you can do better?--Silverback 15:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Silverback, if one patient going to a doctor and saying, "Doc, I hurt. Make it better." isn't the core of medicine, please tell us all what is. "Doctor" literally means "teacher" and has been the title of physicians in English speaking societies for several centuries now--there is nothing "novel" about the physician as teacher. Furthermore, the "important information" about the doctor patient relationship you are so desperately clinging to was a poorly written paragraph that mentioned 1) a physician's relationship with his medicines, which he must compel a patient to take, and 2) a patient's relationship with his government and his insurer, but did NOT mention the physician and patient relating to each other. --Matdaddy 23:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well said. I hadn't realised the etymology of "doctor", but now I understand why I love teaching as well. (Is "indoctrination" an influx of physicians in a busy bar?) JFW | T@lk 13:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleassar777, please discuss and document 

message: I wish Wikip. had an "Article review" button for each article (maybe it does). Anyway, this article seems to be fairly comprehensive and knowledgeable, yet needs a lot of editing for style, sexist pronoun use, and a range of point-of-view issues which characterize a text lacking a degree of scientific precision when it comes to language and writing--less than satisfactory cultural context for its assertions...and style needs improvement. Hope that isn't too critical. I'll try to clean up what I can when I have time. Thanks! 70.57.141.70 02:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the purpose of "article review" would be. Be bold and start editing! If one of us doesn't like it, we'll just revert :-) JFW | T@lk 07:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I just had a little copyedit, and the article is actually not bad at all. If you have any specific complaints, perhaps you could mention them here first so we can achieve consensus. I'm categorically against writing his/her whenever the patient or doctor is referred to. Please stick to "he". A large number of publications follows this principle for stylistic reasons, and I see no reason why we should deviate from this. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Review 

message: Why is there the commercial link wikicities:books in the article? As it contains adds by google, it should be removed. --Eleassar777 10:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikicities 

message: The intro of this article was:
:Medicine is a branch of health science concerned with restoring and maintaining health. Broadly, it is the practical science of preventing and curing diseases. However, medicine often refers more specifically to matters dealt with by physicians and surgeons.
I removed the third line. It suggests that medicine as practiced by physicians and surgeons is not "real medicine". I hotly contest this. Firstly, the remainder of the intro explains exactly what we want (that medicine is a science and a profession). Secondly, medicine as we know it is practiced by many more than just doctors. It is a system - medicine collapses without nurses, laboratory scientists and hospital porters. To claim that medicine is the sole jurisdiction of MDs is a strawman. I'm glad I changed it, and it should not come back. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: Can I suggest that the article medicine is removed from :category:health as it is not consistent with the other articles listed there and can of course be accessed from its own category of :category:medicine or as a subcat of :category:health sciences. Any further suggestions on how we should categorise medicine and allied professions would be much appreciated as there are still a number of inconsistencies. --Vincej 16:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that medicine is part of health. However if every article that is related to health was put in the parent category of health it would be huge! I am proposing that its placement in the subcategory of :category:health sciences is adequate. --Vincej 12:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  category 

message: As part of the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, I redirected Therapeutics here. Both the 1911 version and the 2004 version have material that to me seems exactly like what we cover here. If someone knows that it in fact is a separate discipline, can you let me know and try to create at least a stub on it? Thank you - Taxman Talk 20:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Therapeutics is intrinsic to medicine, but could well refer to physiotherapy etc. Let's leave it like that for now. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: 1) I undertook a relatively extensive revision of the lead section. Please check for appropriateness. 
2) Also, does anyone think that some information should be put in the lead section about the definition of health, quality of life, and the different kinds of health (mental and physical, etc.), as these certainly bear on the field of medical knowledge and practice. Thanks ~ Dpr 07:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an intro of more than 3 paragraphs is too much. This page is about medicine, not health, so quality of life does not need mention in the intro, nor does the distinction between mental and physical health (or their many interconnections). JFW | T@lk 07:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Just wondering why this header was placed. The article does have a "Criticism" section for critics to have their say. Edwardian 21:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See this for a clarification. Some people misunderstand NPOV, the tags and what they could do about bias without slapping tags on things all the time. JFW | T@lk 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV header 

message: I removed it from clinical disciplines because it is not a clinical discipline but
just a way of practice ; it encompasses all disciplines practised in a hospital setting. User:Drepanopulos
:I returned the section as it is becoming a speciality in the United States; see the Hospital medicine link. The term does not encompass all disciplines in the hospital, see article for more info. I believe in the UK there are also physicians who also practice only in the hospital and others who practice only in the office.  Petersam 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospital medicine 

message: The dynamic young specialty of Emergency Medicine and the emergency department has so far been neglected by Wikipedia. If you are an emergency physician or are knowledgeable about this area please contribute to the articles. I have commenced working on the Emergency Department article, but clearly these areas require an enormous quantity of work.--File Éireann 19:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency Medicine 

message: I have edited this section to make a few changes.
Dermatology and Neurology are not generally classified as Internal medicine subspecialties. Critical care medicine, however, is. DocJohnny 09:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK neurology and dermatology are part of general medicine. In contrast, hematology is distinct from oncology. JFW | T@lk 00:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialty Section 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? JFW | T@lk 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Brian0918 put an  tag on the page itself. I agree that some references would be useful, but sadly most of it is simply aggregated from many sources and almost impossible to reference individually. I'd be thrilled if we could provide some good authoratitive sources, e.g. on the history of medicine or criticism of medicine. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If there is no objection I am going to move the details of the H&P out of this article to another article. Kd4ttc 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H&P should be in another article 

message: There were a couple of edits so far about the role of a second opinion.  Most physicians are happy to have a second opinion in a case.  It does not necessarily follow from a bad realationship.  When there is a bad relationship it is best that the parties split.  A second opinion may or may not result in having a transfer of care.  Kd4ttc 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. In the lay view, "second opinion" is an expression of distrust at the diagnosis. Quod non. JFW | T@lk 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion 

message: Gald to see that this is the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. The following sentence appears in the current introduction: "Medicine practice is not just a science, it is an art." Although I agree that that is true, should there be some explanation of why that is true prior to presenting in such a prominent place? -AED 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I am a layman and I'm interested in hearing what people think this article needs -- such as:
*Additions or expansion
*Trimming
*Clarifying
*General polishing
*Other? 
:Maurreen 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction 

message: I'm trimming the following: 
"One method that is used is called the problem-oriented medical record (POMR), which includes a problem list of diagnoses and a "SOAP" method of documentation for each visit:
*S - Subjective, the medical history of the problem from the point-of-view of the patient.
*O - Objective, the physical examination and any laboratory or imaging studies.  
*A - Assessment, is the medical decision-making process including the differential diagnoses and most probable diagnoses.
*P - Plan, the way resolve the problem and monitor progress"
:Maurreen 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is about 10 KB longer than recommended. I'm deleting some detail I think is not needed: under clinical skills, "OPQRST" and "SOCRATES". Maurreen 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also plan to trim the "branches of medicine" section. Maurreen 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Maurreen 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting 

message: Please note that the wikimedicine link currently leads to a christian site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.197.77 (talk) 
:*Could you perhaps be more specific? I looked for links on the page that might fit this description but couldn't find anything. -- MarcoTolo 22:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it: "and medical wiki". This is really a christian wiki. I removed it. Thanks for help! NCurse 11:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I added a wiki-link to Naturopathic Medicine. As more and more people choose to seek advice from both Doctors and Nauturopaths.. both streams of thought, knowledge, education, and training are important. I personally seek out the health professional who empowers me with their knowledge of medicine, whether i have a broken arm, or the flu. Both modalities seek to use medicine to allow people to feel completely healed, healthy and happy.Drakonicon 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikimedicine link 

message: As a trial, so as to give the pre-history of medicine an extremely short clarification; I edited in a brief line to expand on the concept of what 'animism' has been interpreted to be. I began thinking about 'Medicine Men and Women' and their beliefs. I suppose their beliefs generally come under the moniker of 'shamanism' in their healing practices (already noted in the article), which in a sense would have more relevance and detail separate articles on religion, culture etc. Among many Indigenous Australians living their traditional culture, regular contact/communion with their ancestor spirits regulates their own individual health, but the body, mind and spirit of the community. Thus animism also refers to what anthropologists call "communion with ancestor spirits"... Simply means that Traditional Aboriginal Peoples have explained that animism involves talk with the spirit of their granndparents, totem spirits... many variations, but it is not simple shamanism. Complex idea to communicating in one phrase, but it is good enough for me to be included so breifly in  an article devoted to medical science. What do you think of this inclusion?Drakonicon 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history of medicine 

message: The article needs more more pictures. What kind of images would you like to see? Recently I tried some. Comment? NCurse 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I reverted this edit. If source is given, my revert can be reverted. :) NCurse work 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Medicine 

message: The top of this article looks rather cluttered, and could do with an 'otheruses' template for Medicine (disambiguation) --apers0n 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I've marked this article because it is focused only on Western medicine.  A global viewpoint is required, or alternatively the modern/Western focus should be made clearer.  Other systems around the world, whilst not scientifically endorsed or proven, are followed by many billions of people are are considered "medicine".  e.g. Ayurveda, Chinese medicine.
: Given the definition presented at the top of the article, defining medicine as a science, I don't think anything else is appropriate. Non-Western medicine doesn't meet the definition, so the article is hardly non-NPOV. DrGaellon 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but it is only in the west that medicine is considered a science.  If you talk to people around the world about medicine, even if they are English-speaking, they will usually understand their local medical tradition.  Punanimal 13:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will adding links to Alternative medicine within the header help solve this dispute? If I do not hear any other arguments in three days, I will be removing the POV tag. Best regards, Djma12 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: These are mentioned: ayurvedic, Chinese traditional, herbal, etc, and they have their own articles. The interested reader can access them there. Lgh 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sure they are, but the overall view of the article is still, in my opinion, Western.  Punanimal 23:27, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The term and the tradition (i.e., the knowledge genealogy) is Western. Physics is Western too. alteripse 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more clear, the article could make mention in the first paragraph that this article is about allopathy so that no one thinks that this is an article which includes non-conventional medicine. Brallan 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: allopathy is a controversial term that many of us consider inaccurate and derogatory. alteripse 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-western forms of medicine