The Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Southern Medical Association. It has a multidisciplinary and inter-professional focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists.

SMJ // Article

Editorial

The Future of Medicine

Authors: Allen D. Seftel, MD

Abstract

The “For Debate” editorial by Jones and Thomasson 1 suggests that the practice of medicine can now be reduced to a mere online interview. A series of articles on this subject also was published in the March 9, 2002, issue of BMJ. 2–10 The position of Jones and Thomasson puts the entire foundation of medicine at risk. The most crucial part of the medical encounter is the physician-patient visit; the medical history and physical examination remain the cornerstones of the medical evaluation. A tremendous amount of information is gleaned from that encounter. To dispense with those aspects of medical care would be a severe injustice. The medical history, the patient's physical demeanor and attributes, the patient's ability to communicate, and the physician's innate ability to determine subtle findings remain prominent features of the medical evaluation.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Jones MJ, Thomasson, WA. For debate: Establishing guidelines for Internet-based prescribing. South Med J 2003; 96: 1–5.
 
2. Ferguson T. From patients to end users. BMJ 2002; 324: 555–556(editorial).
 
3. Shepperd S, Charnock D. Against Internet exceptionalism. BMJ 2002; 324: 556–557(editorial).
 
4. Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ 2002; 324: 557–558(editorial).
 
5. Eaton L. NHS Direct On-line explores partnerships with other health organisations. BMJ 2002; 324: 568.
 
6. Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the Internet: Chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002; 324: 569–573.
 
7. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 2002; 324: 573–577.
 
8. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, et al. Breast cancer on the World Wide Web: Cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of web sites. BMJ 2002; 324: 577–581.
 
9. Wilson P, Risk A. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: A short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ 2002; 324: 598–602
 
10. Terry N, Stanberry BA. Regulating health information: A US perspective. BMJ 2002; 324: 602–606.