This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Derek E. Denny-Brown, MD

Arch Neurol. 1967;17(6):586-587.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

AFTER three days of intensive discussion, it is clear that, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge's terse remark about the sermon on sin, no one in this highly select company is "agin" neurology. There is no question about the immense value of ventilating the many troublesome and cogent problems represented by Dr. O'Leary's loaded questions, and I wish only to present a few reflections about the main problem that seems to me to emerge from our conference.

In all our discussions, no one felt it necessary to define a neurologist. Yet, upon this hangs a dilemma that cropped up at more than one point and which is germane to the original need for this conference. There is no question that the neurophysiologist, the neuroanatomist, the neuropathologist, and the neurosurgeon are neurologists. I would also maintain that the central object of our enquiry is the neurophysician. It has always seemed striking to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Boston

From Harvard Medical School and Boston City Hospital, Boston.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication May 17, 1967; accepted May 31.

Read before the Proceedings of the National Conference on Education in the Neurological Sciences, White Sulphur Springs, WVa, Nov 16, 1966.

Individual reprints are not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?