This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert R. Wilson, MD, FC Path

JAMA. 1966;196(11):1011-1012.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The "Symposium on the Autopsy"^1-6 prompted the presentation of the results of a study done in London, and reported verbally to the Royal Society of Medicine⁷ but never actually printed. The writer was at that time concerned because the autopsy was in some influential quarters "out of fashion," as Bohrod⁴ puts it. Indeed, one notable physician had said that he never learned anything at postmortem examination, except what the patient did not die of, and he really did not care whether a postmortem examination were done or not. From the autopsy's former position of preeminence, the pendulum had swung too far the other way.

An attempt was therefore made to assess the usefulness of autopsies by doing a survery of a year's postmortem examinations and comparing the clinical diagnosis with the postmortem diagnosis. This implies no disrespect to clinical colleagues. Medicine is one of the most difficult disciplines, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MRCP (Glasgow)

From Paddington General Hospital, London. Dr. Wilson is now at Stobhill General Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Department of Pathology, Stobhill General Hospital, Glasgow N1, Scotland.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?