A participant in a panel discussion is likely to feel less inhibited than is the author of a formal paper. In this respect, the panel discussion here to be reported was successful. It brought forth offhand declarations concerning policy, decision, and technic in open-heart surgery. It brought forth, also, the viewpoints of both internist and surgeon, and these viewpoints were not always the same. In addition, proponents, on the one hand, of extracorporeal circulation and, on the other hand, of hypothermia, spoke freely. Two leading advocates of extracorporeal circulation, moreover, were at variance on several matters.Such free exchange gave to the listeners clearer understanding than they had had of the views expressed. Their perspective was improved. Finally, because great change in the field under consideration has not taken place since the discussions were held, the clarifications achieved will help toward solving problems of the immediate future.Papers presented
Open Heart Surgery. AMA Arch Surg. 1957;75(2):236–247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1957.01280140074012
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: