By many measures, it is an unsettled and unsettling time. The medical profession, too, is navigating rapid social changes along with major shifts in the scientific and technological foundations of practice. Of note, medicine as a broad term now often appears with a growing list of qualifiers (eg, evidence-based, molecular, personalized, precision). A brief review of the past century of schools of thought in and about medicine may be informative for 2 reasons: (1) to provide context for an apparent rebirth of medical sectarianism and (2) to enable reflection on some themes that seem unifying and evergreen.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Naylor CD. The Evolution of Schools of Thought in Medicine: Healthy Tensions. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1035–1036. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.0748
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: