This Article  • References  • 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?

L. William Halling, MD
Hays Pathology Laboratories, PA Hays, Kan

JAMA. 1985;253(24):3547-3548.

	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.—

Dr Powsner¹ provided a valuable review of the subject of SI units, particularly in view of an apparent national initiative to change to this reporting system in 1987. Pathologists should be careful not to be the only group of physicians promoting this change. Hostility among some of the laboratory users will doubtless be generated and will not be easily diverted from the laboratory that inflicts this change on them. As a group, pathologists have had valid reasons for alliances with hospital administrators, technologists, and PhD doctoral scientists but should remember that their most important identification is with other physicians and patients.

The primary impetus for the SI system comes not only from Europe but also from nonclinical laboratorians. This is not to deny that many clinicians here and abroad may have found it possible, and even helpful, to work with SI units, but we do not see many articles by clinicians bearing witness to this. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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