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

William A. Tisdale, MD
Burlington, Vt

JAMA. 1971;217(8):1104.

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

To the Editor.—

I was both intrigued and perplexed by your EDITORIAL entitled "Voices" (216:1473, 1971). You indicated, quite correctly, that the medical profession has many components and motivations, a situation which is basically healthy. Your final paragraph, however, seems to suggest that differences and honest disagreement were divisive and distasteful, ending with the implication that THE JOURNAL speaks loudly, consistently, and universally for organized medicine.

The profession, like all of society, is complex and changing, and all of its elements should have the opportunity and the responsibility to express their convictions and objectives for study and evaluation. Although The Journal may speak "proudly for Medicine," none of us can seriously believe that it speaks for all members or all factions. These comments seem to point up a central problem in communication, one that aggravates and perpetuates the "cacophony": many small but devoted groups have no formal channel of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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