Editorial: League for beleaguered internists.

Abstract

In England, they still call it general practice. Here in the United States "general practice" was thought to have depreciatory implications, and general practitioners, like janitors and undertakers, sought a new name that would give their profession better status, particularly vis-à-vis so-called specialists. But, in retrospect, the change in name may have been ill considered. Whose virtues in the spectrum of medical care are more venerated today than those of the "old fashioned G.P."? And who, by contrast, is more criticized for his impersonal technology and pecuniary interests than the ultraspecialist?The change in name also poses semantic problems. None . . .