Jump to content

Talk:Internal medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
JerryVanF (talk | contribs)
Don't use terminology that Wikipedia made up
Line 49: Line 49:


Since the references section has no actual references, I've taken it out. Until and unless someone goes through and starts listing citations in the text, there's really no need for it.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the references section has no actual references, I've taken it out. Until and unless someone goes through and starts listing citations in the text, there's really no need for it.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Fake information?==
The intro mentions "Doctors of Internal Medicine". This is a made up wikipedia term.

It is so misleading that I must put a POV label on it.

Let's not make up information or at least put a citation. [[User:JerryVanF|JerryVanF]] ([[User talk:JerryVanF|talk]]) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:16, 11 May 2008

WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page is really quite messy. It simply provides some loose change on every specialism, without even going into the diagnostic process Technically, radiation oncologists are not Internal Medicine subspecialists. In the US, they are distinct from medical oncologists. DocJohnny 08:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, clinical oncologists are internists by training. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the US, we distinguish between Medical Oncologists, which are IM subspecialists, and radiation oncologists, who are trained in a completely separate track.DocJohnny 06:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in The Netherlands is quite similar to the US one (as it was introduced by Andries Querido). JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy/Immunology This article leaves out Allergy/Immmunology and Nuclear Medicine as sub-specialties of IM. Just because the ABIM doesnt cover Allergy, that doesnt detract from its connection to IM. Wikipedia doesnt even have an article for Allergy as a medical specialty.

UK General medicine

From what I have read, the UK general medicine docs are more like our family practice docs in that they have training in ob/gyn and pediatrics, is that true?

Not true, at least not anymore. In the past UK general physicians were examined on paeds, but not anymore. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's

Nice catch on that error 200.75.217.179

I looked past that error numerous times. Good Grief. --DocJohnny 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as start

I have classified this article as a start. It needs to be sourced. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrEng

Am I right in thinking that the medical specialty is spelt like that even in British English, where the general word is spelt "speciality"? I'm sure I've seen it used in the UK. 81.153.110.216 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM as the "Doctor's Doctor"

Does anybody know who calls IM Docs "Doctor's Doctor"? I think that this is backwards. IM Docs consult specialties like radiology and pathology to make their diagnoses and then they (IM) treat the patient. radiologists and pathologists are called "Doctor's Doctors" because their job is to advise other doctors and not to treat patients. I think we should delete that section of the article 208.63.240.59 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've hit on a major historical point of which the article needs further development - the history of internal medicine as a specialty and the derivation of the term "internal medicine." As it was conceived, practitioners of "internal medicine" were consultants, having taken rigorous training beyond their undergraduate medical education in histology, gross pathology, and medical chemistry. General Practitioners, were the 'doctors' to who internists were "doctor's doctors." The term still applies today, however, to the modern consultants of Internal Medicine, the subspecialists. 132.192.82.245 03:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internists without MD or DO, "Biomedical Doctors"

If this section means to say that you can be an internist without being a physician then it's wrong... at least in the US, but probably by definition. Whatever a "Biomedical Doctor" is, if they aren't licensed to practice medicine then they can in no way be specialized in internal medicine. 208.63.240.59 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you; I was infuriated to see the inclusion of osteopaths as a branch of medicine. It must be emphasised in this page, (if discussion of this psuedoscience is included at all, which it probably shouldn't) that nobody in their right mind would consider and osteopath a practioner of internal medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.118.221 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References Section

Since the references section has no actual references, I've taken it out. Until and unless someone goes through and starts listing citations in the text, there's really no need for it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake information?

The intro mentions "Doctors of Internal Medicine". This is a made up wikipedia term.

It is so misleading that I must put a POV label on it.

Let's not make up information or at least put a citation. JerryVanF (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]