Talk:Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Medicine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.

Old talk:

Feel free to visit the doctors's mess where topics related to medicine are discussed.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

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)

[edit] Health care, one word or two?

Would anyone object if "health care" is written as two words? I believe that is more standard. Maurreen 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appologise health care should be quite maintainence of those selectivily chosen as i am out of contact wiht the well i think i will read your enclyclopedia and try an d make sense i appologise for my effort H T PAGE it wasnt need ed health care can be either or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.210.178 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Direction

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)

[edit] Layout

I've been thinking about this article for a while, and I consider that a Featured-quality article about this subject should contain the following:

  1. Introduction
  2. Types of medicine
    1. Alternative
    2. Traditional
    3. Western
  3. Branches of medicine
  4. Current medicine
    1. Current practice
    2. Current issues (e.g. medical malpractice, cost of healthcare)
    3. Current challenges (diseases)
  5. History of medicine (including significant figures and events for each era)
    1. Classical era
    2. Middle ages
    3. Rennaissance
    4. Enlightenment
    5. 20th century
  6. Future of medicine
    1. Current trends
    2. Advancements
  7. Medical education
  8. Criticism
  9. See also, references, etc...

That's just my opinion, but that's what I would look at first as someone who is using the article as a research tool. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be much better. But I have a few suggestions and questions:
  1. Change order of types to put "Alternative" last.
  2. Under "Current medicine" include bioethics or something similar somewhere.
  3. "History" section should somehow include non-Western (It might do this already, and I just don't know enough).
  4. Should there be a section for something along the lines of treatment, therapy, medication?
  5. Does this outline have a place for, or should it have a place for, mental health, preventive health and public health?
Maurreen 16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting

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)
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)
I also plan to trim the "branches of medicine" section. Maurreen 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How about moving the Medical Equipment section to its own article or stub? - Cybergoth 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] wikimedicine link

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)
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)
  • 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)

[edit] Pre-history of medicine

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)

[edit] Pictures

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)

[edit] Energy Medicine

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

The same. NCurse work 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

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)

[edit] POV-check

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)
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)
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)

while the non-western practices certainly warrant mention, bear in mind that this is the english wikipedia and modern eclectic medicine constitutes far and away the majority of medical thought in english speaking countries (where this is likely to be read).Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-western forms of medicine

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)

Yes, sure they are, but the overall view of the article is still, in my opinion, Western. Punanimal 23:27, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
allopathy is a controversial term that many of us consider inaccurate and derogatory. alteripse 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biomedicine

Greetings fellow editors =). I have a suggestion to create a separate article for "Biomedicine" which is the field of medical science. The Medician

[edit] Rod of Asclepius or Caduceus?

Currently we're saying that the caduceus is the symbol of medicine, but by the content of their respective pages on wikipedia it would seem that the Rod of Asclepius is actually the more historically accurate. Does anyone have any particular views on this? If not I suggest a change. Jbarfield 14:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The strong position is this: anyone who uses the caduceus -- and there are many professional groups (such as, for example, the United States Army Medical Command) that have made this historical and cultural error -- is absolutely and completely incorrect.
Despite from these culturally mistaken recent claims, the caduceus has always been, and will always be a symbol of the Greek God Hermes (also known as the Roman God Mercury), the messenger of the Gods.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with medicine; and, except for these recent, culturally mistaken associations (of, one might suppose, say, speed of delivery of service), there is no evidence of any kind to support any linkage of this symbol of Hermes/Mercury with medicine in any manner at all.
Also, the fact that the American Medical Association, the Royal Society of Medicine, and the British Medical Association, perhaps the three most (historically) eminent medical associations in the world (and, as well, the World Health Organization), all use the Rod of Asclepius in their logo, makes the case for removal unassailable.
To make my point a different way: no matter how many people mistakenly call a Bison bison a "buffalo", the American Bison truly remains a bison; and, in the same way, no matter how many people mistakenly call a Phascolarctos cinereus a "bear", the koala remains a marsupial.
In my view, the caduceus must be replaced (or, at least, removed) immediately! If for no other reason than the fact that its appearance here in Wikipedia will continue to perpetuate (and, inadvertently, support) this historically mistaken attribution.Lindsay658 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to assume the symbol has nothing to do with medicine. In the old testament Moses made a bronze snake wrapped round a pole: anyone looking up at this symbol was cured of their illness. Without having an old testament to hand I can't give you the exact ref, and it may have only been snakebite that was cured, but it is from here that the west gets the idea of the caduceus being curative. It is likely that Moses (who was highly educated in the Egyptian arts, including medicine) was using an Egyptian idea, and in fact there is some evidence that the snake is a very ancient symbol of mystery, renewal and healing, certainly in Eurasia. Lgh 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lgh, everything you have written in response to my assertion that Hermes/Mercury's "double-snaked" caduceus "has nothing whatsoever to do with medicine" and that, instead, the "single-snaked" Rod of Asclepius is the correct symbol, completely supports my case; and, in fact, what you have written completely explodes any claims that could be made on behalf of the caduceus. Thanks for your supportLindsay658 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah OK; the point of this tedious argument is that the symbols are used interchangeably these days and no-one particularly cares about the deep-and-meaningful symbolism. In the seventh centruy CE the caduceus came to be assoc with alchemy, based on the Hermetic spells. The origins of the caduceus are thought to be as early as 2600BCE. It was used by priests in the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece and has been assoc with the Gnostic Corpus Hermeticum and Kundalini Yoga, where it is thought to be symbolic of nerve channels 'ida', 'pingala' and 'sushumna'. Moreover, from a design point of view it is probably preferabl;e to have two snakes. Hermes also originally carried only a staff with a winged sun, according to some sources. This staff may have had two white ribbons which later evolved into the snakes. Also, he was the bringer of health (according to some sources). The snake/s on poles was a widely used symbol throughout the fertile crescent area and symbolised all sorts of things, including sex, renewal and commerce. Lgh 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please replace the image to be the correct rod of Aesclepius? For those who "don't care", then it won't matter to you, and you probably shouldn't be posting on Wikipedia if accuracy isn't important to you. To me, the history of medicine is crucial to understanding the profession today; also, a colleague of mine erroneously got a large rod of Caduceus tattoo to celebrate getting his M.D., because he was unaware of the history and a brief search on the internet had led him to websites like this one that has posted the wrong symbol. I'll replace it myself if nobody else does, but I'm not wiki-wise enough yet. Jlefort (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacists

"The physician's expertise comes from his knowledge of what is healthy and normal contrasted with knowledge and experience of other people who have suffered similar symptoms (unhealthy and abnormal), and the proven ability to relieve it with medicines (pharmacology) or other therapies about which the patient may initially have little knowledge, although the latter may be better performed by a pharmacist."

I'm changing the part about pharmacists possibly being better at prescribing medication, as it seems that pharmacists can't legally do that in any country, with the possible exception of Canada...

[edit] Chiropractors

I reverted an anon's edit on chiropractors and ask you for feedback. It contained unreferenced, and in my opinion, POV statements (such as The body has a powerful, natural, self-healing ability;) NCurse work 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your reversion was entirely appropriate. While chiropractic may be appropriate to include, the anon edit was, as you noted, both POV and unreferenced. -- MarcoTolo 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I had to do an other revertion. Please, those who can, watch the article for some time. NCurse work 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Multiple sources note the di– vs. tri-syllabic pronunciation of medicine—and they tend to ascribe the di-syllabic form to British English. Here are two three I just dug-up:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1): (med-uh-sin or, especially Brit., med-suhn)
Merriam-Webster: (\'me-d?-s?n, British usually 'med-s?n\ )
Hutchinson Encyclopaedia: "medicine—The standard pronunciation has two syllables [med-suhn], with the stress on the first syllable and a weak second syllable, but there are several acceptable variations including [med-sin] and [med-iss-sin]."

-- MarcoTolo 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think your sources are valid and interesting. Consider putting these within Wiktionary. Djma12 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've taken your suggestion and ported the refs to Wikt (my first actual edits over there). -- MarcoTolo 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Given all of the above, is there some reason for the absence of any link to the specific area of the Wiktionary to which all of this important information has been removed. It seems that the link should appear where the excised text and footnotes once were (in the first paragraph). I have no idea how to do this. Perhaps someone else could perform this task. Also, why has the reference to the Oxford English Dictionary disappeared? ThanksLindsay658 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Djma12's comments (both in an edit summary and above), I've listed the pronunciation info at Wiktionary and added a link in the External links section. A direct interwiki link in the first paragraph might also be appropriate - thoughts? -- MarcoTolo 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is great. I think a direct interwiki link in the first paragraph would also be helpful. Any suggestions on where to put it so that it is not distracting? Djma12 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic countries still using herbal medicine as a complimentary treatment in clinics

In the following paragraph, there is a flaw:

The new, "scientific" medicine (where results are testable and repeatable) replaced early Western traditions of medicine, based on herbalism, the Greek "four humours" and other pre-modern theories.

In the Nordic countries, herbal medicine is used as a complimentary measure with the chemical drugs in clinics. It is used to treat less harmful complaints as digestion problems, ... By using herbal medicine, it allows the clinics to treat the patient without any side-effects, in contradiction to what happens if they give chemical drugs.

No side effects? Nature rarely gives anything away for free. A herb will either have no side effects becuase it does nothing or it might do something but the side effects are unknown. Where do you think many of the chemicals used in evidence based medicine come from in the first place? --Meridius 03:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor vs Physician

A search in this article for 'doctor' yields just 3 matches. This really proves the US-centric nature of the article. In countries outside the US, 'physicians' are called 'doctors' - and 'medical doctor/MD' is not really used. Indeed, physicians are a particular specialty of doctor. I think this needs to be either clarified, or fixed up. Suicup 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a gander at this? It's beyond the scope of my studies.... --Mrtobacco 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avicenna

I have added Avicenna as he was considered the modern father of medicine 78.144.25.252 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patient-physician-relationship

The four cornerstones of medicine described in the article are anatomy, physiology, pathology and psychology. Should psychology be changed to psychiatry instead? - Cyborg Ninja 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Individual Medicines

What is the scientific name for the skill/career or developing new medicines. For example crocodillin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.37.82 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical medicine. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fishy paragraph in "History of medicine"

I FACT marked two assestations in this paragraph which I find particularly problematic. But there are several serious problems in the entire paragraph: The link to UK actually directs to Germany (bogus or vandalism?). The temporal flow is incoherent, starts with 1900s and then the black death... The authority discussion seems misplaced, I would rather see it as a shift towards empiricism but this originated earlier, at least in the 1700 century, see John Locke and David Hume. I understand the logic of the reference to planetary movement - but the reference causes the line of reasoning to wander. The Church was a very conservative power, but not only the Catholic, also the Protestant. The narrow focus on UK/USA is contradicted in the preceeding section where many countries are mentioned. I suggest the whole paragraph be deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try boldy rewriting it, rather than others needing to do the tidying up? JFW | T@lk 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking other people to do work. I propose that the paragraph is deleted, not rewritten. The text has been like this for at least two years. As a mere passerby I consider it reasonable to present arguments and defer the decision to the the people regularly reviewing this page. But I would be happy to contribute. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science: monkeys were the first doctors

[1] May be big news for this article? Should we make a mention about animal using medicine? --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.85.22 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic Medicine: inclusion worthy?

I noticed that naturopathic medicine was in this article, and was wondering the feelings of including chiropractic medicine, in some form, in the body of the article. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Naturopathic medicine is just one branch of alternative medicine. I removed it from the mainstream section. I don't think chiropractic should be listed without a caveat that it is not considered a mainstream medical specialty. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Physics

Im surprised medical physics isnt even mentioned in this article. Medical Physics graduate programs are quite common now in medical schools across the country.see list. I added a line in the Basic Sciences section.--Zereshk (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, although the field of radiation is largely contained in radiology, radiation therapy and nuclear medicine. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)