The Naturalist Tradition in General Practice
The Naturalist Tradition in General Practice I, r, McWhinney, MD London, Ontario For me there have been two great satisfactions of medical practice. One has been the depth of human experience which, as physicians, we are privileged to have. The other has been the satisfaction of observing patients with illnesses of all kinds, in their own habitat, and over long periods of time. This is the kind of satisfaction experienced by all naturalists. I would claim that observation of prognosis and to rational therapeutics. The clinician, then, has much in the natural history of disease is the Suppose, for example, people with common with the naturalist. “Natu basic science of medicine. Nowadays schizophrenia were found to have a ralists,” wrote John Ryle,1 “hold cer we use the term “basic science” for biochemical abnormality. This dis tain attributes in common, notably the what Abraham Flexner called the la covery would have no significance desire to establish the truth of things boratory sciences. There is no harm in without the clinical description of a by observing and recording, by classifi this as long as we do not mean that the category called schizophrenia, and a cation and analysis.” Like the natural laboratory sciences are more funda knowledge of its natural course and ist, the clinician makes careful observa mental and more scientific than the outcome. tions of his/her patients, classifies their science of clinical observation. Chemis Medicine, like other branches of illnesses into categories, then follows try and physics can explain ill health biology, is predominantly an observa them to their conclusion.
[Show full text]