Talk:Medical Corps (United States Army)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

This page in support of AMEDD Article[edit]

This page was created as a redirect to Army Medical Department (United States) to provide a single point for articles on each of the AMEDD Corps to develop to the point of achieving independent article status. If you would like to contribute to an article on this branch, please do so at AMEDD. Thanks. --Mddake 04:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Stand-alone article[edit]

This is now a stand-alone article. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Military vs. Civilian[edit]

Hi, it might be useful to state the number or percentage of Army Doctors that wear a uniform vs the number that are civilian employees.... -- (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Since we feature an image of the symbol (aside from the insignia patch) rather prominently in the article, does anyone think it might be worthwhile to at least briefly mention the criticism that its continued use has generated? For those unfamiliar, its use was championed by a single influential officer completely unfamiliar with the symbolism (it's a symbol of commerce, and not a medical symbol), which has led to its widespread adoption by other medical organisations in the United States, especially commercial ones. As such, its continued use by the Corps has been criticised within the medical profession and by academics, and its become a source of derision among professional medical organisations outside the U.S. Thoughts? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this "issue" is a silly, overblown non-issue. Rather than a "source of derision" it is an item of fixation for certain hobbyists and purists who for some reason are agitated by the evolution of symbols and their meanings over centuries. Face it: whatever its origins, the caduceus is a well-established symbol of medicine throughout the world & it looks to continue to be so for a long time. No "criticism" of the Corps is going to change that. (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)