In article <19980220095200.EAA08177 at ladder02.news.aol.com>, ATeasd5941
<ateasd5941 at aol.com> writes
>Hello Carol....read your post...some interesting points made...
>> Much of the social change in medicine seems to have been
>helped along by the shifting role of social workers and social
>teaching. The flexibility of the teaching in this area has allowed
> mobility in thought and change.
>> The ridgid structure of social teaching in medicine, and the
> paucity of it, has constrained medicine to one point. The only
> flexibility comes seemingly from the scientific end of the teaching
> and movement. This leaves the question of whether medicine is now
>serving the few at the expense of the many, therefore needs to
> be constrained for societies sake?
For the improvement of a somewhat tired brain...could you give
an example?
>>Which leads me to anther point I would like to make;
>>The medical profession has been stifled by its own formality and
>has become unable to break away from it, why? Is it not time
>to break away from the Victorian values attached to its "status"
>and allow the medical profession to work with people and not
>for its self?
It's not so strange to find your last question still being asked.
To some extent the whole history of the Medical Profession has been one
dominated by elitist thinking. But again before I launch in to
a discussion here, I would appreciate some examples, just to clarify
your arguments, then I will have a better understanding.
Many thanks
--
sharon
