[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 8, 1916

A Proposed Undergraduate Course in Clinical Physiology— A Reply

Author Affiliations

Ph.D., New York. Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons.

JAMA. 1916;LXVI(15):1155. doi:10.1001/jama.1916.02580410089028

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:  —Dr. Bush assumes an attitude toward both the existing course in physiology and the medical school which is not generally held. It is obviously unnecessary to discuss seriously his characterization of the course in physiology as "an educational failure."The situation in the school would not be improved by devoting the course to "human" physiology only, even if that were desirable, or were possible in the present state of the evolution of physiologic science. One thing that I tried to make clear in my little paper read at the Chicago meeting is that some knowledge of clinical medicine is necessary before the student can fully appreciate the clinical bearings of physiology. Therefore a change in the existing course in physiology of the first or second year would not give him the physiologic point of view that he should have as a practitioner. He must have his course

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview