Talk:Wilk v. American Medical Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A few points to address

  • 1)It would be nice to start the article with concise definition of "Wilk v. American Medical Association", then proceed addressing the events that led up to that case, what happened in the case, and how the case affected the AMA, organized medicine in the US, and chiropractic.
  • 2)The first paragraph is not clear to me: Until 1983, the American Medical Association (AMA) had made it unethical for medical doctors to refer patients to chiropractors, by classifying chiropractice as unscientific. Prior to 1980, Principle 3 of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics stated: "A physician should practice a method of healing founded on a scientific basis; and he should not voluntarily professionally associate with anyone who violates this principle."If Principle 3 was dropped in 1980, what made it unethical for MDs to refer to DCs up until 1983? And the AMA can't "make it unethical" (don't like that wording) for ALL MDs - at best they can only do that for AMA members.
  • 3)In the second paragraph: Also, up until 1974, the AMA had a Committee on Quackery which openly declared war on many unscientific forms of healing. A literal description of what they did would be more encyclopedic. So what did they actually do?
  • 4)In the second to last paragraph: Both sides cross-appealed... If the court ruled in favor of one side, why would it appeal?
  • 5)In the second to last paragraph: However, it is important to not read too much into such denials, as the Court grants certiorari only when a case presents a novel question of law, and the Wilk case was a straightforward application of the Sherman Act. This reads as though it is POV, but I have no idea of what it means.AED 3 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy quotes

The insertion of multiple lengthy quotes is a lazy way to build an article. Shortening them to the most important points would be a welcomed change. AED 01:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

The article seems to be entirely sourced from chiropractors' sources. The concluding remarks have been literally lifted from one of their websites. I suspect not everyone would agree with their summary. Rl 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good article

while i agree that this article needs a pov check by an outsider, i think its a great effort and anything but "lazy." kudos to the editors. Touro OsteopathicFreak T 14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POVcheck tag

Have removed tag - pls replace if you consider it still relevant. From quality of editors current and lack of discusion on this page I asssume things are relatively OK. SmithBlue (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)