This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • 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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

D. G. C.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1965;73(6):763-764.

	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 preoccupation of ophthalmologists and other specialists with their particular biologic domains usually precludes participation in the broader aspects of medicine. This is worrisome to responsible officers of the AMA. That specialization is necessary is acknowledged by recognition of specialty sections—there are now 22 such in the AMA—but the fear exists that the sectional allegiances of these specialists attenuates the effectiveness of the main corporate body.

Feeling that the AMA has failed somewhere, somehow to provide the cohesiveness for a united profession, the Board of Trustees recently called an all-day meeting of representatives of the scientific sections and of various medical specialty organizations with the Councils on Postgraduate Programs, Medical Education, Medical Service, and Legislative Activities, along with the Board of Trustees and Administrative staff. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the interrelationship of specialty organizations and the AMA as a whole. Much of this was highly informative . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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