Talk:Medicine

Scientific medicine, versus Ayurveda, TCM, etc.

While most readers of the English wikipedia associate medicine with the western science-based practice, other practices such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda also lay large claims to the term worldwide. I propose that the Medicine article be renamed to Modern medicine, Western medicine, or even Hippocratic medicine — and that the Medicine page become a redirect or a disambiguation page. --Stybn (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the discipline considered to be mainstream medicine all over the world. Neither Ayurveda nor TCM are considered mainstream outside their respective geographical areas, and very possibly not there either. I certainly wouldn't call it "Hippocratic medicine" - that system largely died out in the 19th century, although it persists in India as Unani. Brunton (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent three weeks in a couple of cities in India last November, and the only references to Ayurveda I saw were in TV ads for a hair gel. If it's there, it's not obvious or it's a rural phenomenon. This issue of "what is medicine?" has been discussed before, and that major international organizations recognize the Arab-Greek school is an obvious piece of evidence. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are relatively modern and definitely Western, but they're not part of Medicine as most would define the word. SDY (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a move is a good idea, and suggest a new name be come up with for this article. (Maybe Mainstream Medicine) I don't think this should be done due to any large amount of varying interpretation of the term, but rather because medicine is often used as a noun meaning a substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. Also there should be a new article, explicitly dealing the history of medicine. It would also be valuable to include in this article, how alternative medicine is becoming incorporate into the mainstream (one example of this is the Integrative Medicine program at Duke, another is foreign researchers initiating clinical studies on herbs coming from their respective countries' system of traditional medicine which in turn are used in the creation of prescription drugs). Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 27 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though. Tobby72 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mechanic arts

There is a mention in the mechanic arts article that medicine was once considered to be one of the "seven mechanical arts". However it is not clear in that article what significance that was; however it may be a useful addition to the history section, but I am not knowledgeable enough to make that change. Mentioned here in case someone else is... Dhollm (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Neurosciences

Waithought (talk · contribs) has repeatedly modified the article to create a category of subspecialties that he calls "clinical neurosciences". This is meant to include anaesthetics, rehabilitation medicine and psychiatry. Some organisations may choose to organise their services this way, but I don't think that this classification is widely accepted and should be reflected into this article. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but your posting seems to suggest that psychiatry is not widely regarded as a clinical neuroscience. Please refer to the website of the Society for Neuroscience - which is the world's largest academic organization dedicated to neuroscience. <http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=whatIsNeuroscience>

A quote from that page: 'Clinical neuroscientists — psychiatrists, neurologists and other medical specialists — use basic research findings to develop diagnostic methods and ways to prevent and treat neurological disorders that affect millions of people.'

Wikipedia should be evidence-based, rather than based on personal opinions. There is substantial evidence backing up why these specialties are neuroscience-related - it is not just how certain organizations choose to organize their services. Please refer to the posting below for the evidence behind my proposal (and further evidence available upon request).Waithought (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They are related to the academic field of neuroscience, but I do not accept that psychiatrists, rehabilitation doctors and addiction specialists regard themselves as "clinical neuroscientists". That's a step too for. Of course the Society for Neuroscience will do whatever it can to widen their sphere of influence, but it is simply not the way things are. I'm not sure why you have opened a separate thread below to discuss exactly the same issue. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked that the founder of the WikiProject Medicine would make a comment like, 'cf course the Society for Neuroscience will do whatever it can to widen their sphere of influence, but it is simply not the way things are.' Again, the Society of Neuroscience is the world's largest and most well-respected academic organization dedicated to neuroscience. The background information they post on their website reflects the view of a large number of academics (including medical doctors) worldwide involved in neuroscience endeavours - not only research, but also education and clinical work. Your statement is tremendously disrespectful.

It is especially disappointing - given what you guys have been promoting in the J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jan 31;13(1):e14 paper - Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion. Quote: 'We invite the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.'

You can disagree with the editorial changes proposed by other contributors - but that should be backed by EVIDENCE, not personal opinions like 'this is simply not the way things are', 'I do not accept that psychiatrists... regard themselves as "clinical neuroscientists"' etc. The WikiProject Medicine has been a wonderful initiative, but the entries should reflect the reality (which is ever-changing) - not only the founder's opinions. These fields might not have been regarded as 'clinical neurosciences' when you were in medical school - but people in these fields will know how much things have advanced in the past 5-10 years.

Most important of all, for the benefit of the WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia as a whole, please stop making condescending comments/ungrounded accusations towards well-established academic organizations - especially when you would describe yourself as a 'scientist'.Waithought (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with JFW on this one. I don't see a reason to promote neuroscience as a "special" branch of medicine. There are many interdisciplinary programs in medicine, and unless we want to talk about all of them we should not give neuroscience special treatment. SDY (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SDY - I'm actually okay with JFW not agreeing with the proposal, and I also see your point. That's why I tried to find an alternative solution - which JFW seemed to be okay too.

What I was writing above actually referred to JFW's ungrounded accusations towards the Society of Neuroscience and the way how he would dismiss others' evidence-based suggestions solely based on his personal opinions, rather than objective evidence. The way how you (SDY) expressed your opinion was very rational and I totally saw your point - and I agreed with you (SDY) that neuroscience should not be given undue weight in this article.

As such, I decided to respond to JFW's March 10/2011 comments here not because I would like to discuss about the 'neuroscience-related specialties' issue any further. I was just hoping that a culture of evidence-based and rational discussion can be maintained/promoted in Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine. I respect JFW for having initiated the very worthwhile WikiProject Medicine - and would hate to see the project going astray.Waithought (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence-based is not the only guiding star here, there's a certain amount of disrespect for the rules, mostly because strict application of absolute principles can and has been abused. Common sense still comes before "evidence based" unless you can prove through sources that common sense is explicitly wrong (or if common sense does not exist with a technical topic). The evidence that you provided supporting your position was not convincing to show that a substantial change has happened in the way the practice of medicine is organized, which is what was originally proposed in the article. There is a culture of "evidence-based and rational discussion" and providing evidence is necessary but not sufficient to make a potentially controversial change. There are too many sources, even ones you might expect to be reliable, that distort reality to meet what they want (e.g. the extreme variety in possible death tolls from the Chernobyl accident), and just citing a source does not make it truth. SDY (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience-related medical specialties

In order to help audience of Wikipedia, especially those outside the medical field, to appreciate that neuroscience/nervous system is a common theme across many seemingly distinct medical specialties, I propose to create a category of 'neuroscience-related medical specialties' - just like how specialties have been grouped together under surgery, internal medicine or diagnostic specialties.

There are numerous sources to support this proposal. See, for instance, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) (one of the top 5 medical schools in US) Institute of Neurological Sciences: http://www.med.upenn.edu/ins/cnst.html

Quote: 'The nervous system is the only system of the body commonly represented by an undergraduate major, and many medical students come to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine especially interested in Neurology, Psychiatry, and Neurosurgery. These, and closely allied specialties, including neuroradiology, neuropathology, ophthalmology, otorhinolaryngology, anesthesiology, and rehabilitation medicine, constitute the clinical neurosciences.'

From this UPenn page, it can also be seen that they have created a 'clinical neuroscience track' at the UPenn medical school 'to train clinical neuroscience specialists who will participate at the forefront of clinical and academic practice, and disease oriented research. The program combines curricular enrichment in the neurosciences, mentoring, special extracurricular activities and research opportunities within the four-year medical school structure.'

Clearly, at least at UPenn, the term 'clinical neuroscience' is not only referring to research endeavours, but also clinical practice and beyond.

By referring these specialties as 'neuroscience-related', I did not imply that a clinician in rehabilitation medicine - for instance - should regard themselves as 'practising neuroscientists'. They certainly should not do so. All I was trying to get across is that there's a common theme across these specialties, namely the nervous system.

If 'neuroscience-related' is too strong a word, one could consider 'nervous system-related' specialties - but that may be too awkward a term.

Other than the above listed specialties, 'addiction medicine' definitely would be a neuroscience-related specialty - as addiction mechanisms are brain-based. See, for instance, <www.camh.net/Research/Areas_of_research/Neuroscience/clinical_neuroscience.html>

'Pain management' is certainly neuroscience-related as well - as pain perception is based in the central nervous system. See, for instance, University of Manchester http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/clinicalneurosciences/research/humanpain/

I think it is self-evident that 'Clinical neurophysiology' is neuroscience-related.

Some other sources supporting that physiatry (i.e. rehabilitation medicine), opthalmology and anesthesiology are neuroscience-related:

Physiatry - Washington University (one of the top 5 medical schools in US) - physiatry residency program is offered through Dept of Neurology <http://neuro.wustl.edu/education/pmrresidency/>

Ophthalmology - see: University College London <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/neuroscience/Page.php?ID=11> Quote: 'At UCL, clinical neuroscience research spans the entire spectrum of neurological, ophthalmic and psychiatric disorders in both children and adults.'

Or: Karolinska Institute Dept of Clinical Neuroscience Research: <http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=36147&l=en>

Anesthesiology - with a major focus on pain control, it is certainly related to neurosciences. See, for instance, 'Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care'

Thanks.Waithought (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While it's reasonable to classify these as a group, they were also perfectly reasonable under the previous way they were classified, and promoting neuroscience as "special" is giving it more weight than warranted. It's an important group, true, but all of the other headings are for "supergroups": it'd be like having a list of vertebrates, invertebrates, and cats. SDY (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The current solution is reasonable, but I don't want you (Waithought) to repeat previous edits to the effect that these clinical specialties are somehow umbrellafied by the label "neurosciences". That is simply not the way things are. Universities may choose to bunch academic departments in these fields together, but I think you'd be overstating your case if you said that a psychiatrist would regard herself as a "clinical neuroscientist with an interest in psychiatry" or somesuch. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Medical practice

The section Medicine#Clinical practice is much more comprehensive than the entire article of Medical practice, and I don't see why Medical practice can't simply be merged to this article. If Medical practice should be a fork from the section Medicine#Clinical practice, then it should at least be a little bit more synchronized first, so that the bulk of the text is in the forked article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jesanj (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Practice vs Drugs

This gives primary meaning as "the science and art of healing", and Medication as the drugs which are used as medicine. However, Wiktionary [[1]] has #1 as the drugs, #2 as "treatment or cure", #3 as "The study of the cause, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of disease or illness" and #4 as "The profession of physicians, surgeons and related specialisms; those who practice medicine". So this article has wiktionary's #3 and #4 dealed here, but #1 in a different article. Feels somehow odd. 82.141.119.188 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)