This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
In the April 27 issue of The Journal, pages 1583-1600, specialists have squared off at that ever-present dragon, general practice. While I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the authors contributing to this series, I do feel that it is necessary to point out several large areas in which they have been led astray. In the first place, the definition of a generalist needs some attention. Let us try this one: A generalist is a physician who has become proficient in those procedures commonly demanded of him by the community in which he practices. By using this definition we can readily see that the practice of the generalist in New York City will vary from that of a generalist in a logging community in Oregon. For this reason the training to which these generalists and their successors should be exposed varies greatly. In fact, there
Lamb H. THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER. JAMA. 1957;164(12):1382–1383. doi:10.1001/jama.1957.02980120086020