This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
C	This page has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] This

This page is really quite messy. It simply provides some loose change on every specialism, without even going into the diagnostic process Technically, radiation oncologists are not Internal Medicine subspecialists. In the US, they are distinct from medical oncologists. DocJohnny 08:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, clinical oncologists are internists by training. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here in the US, we distinguish between Medical Oncologists, which are IM subspecialists, and radiation oncologists, who are trained in a completely separate track.DocJohnny 06:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The situation in The Netherlands is quite similar to the US one (as it was introduced by Andries Querido). JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Allergy/Immunology This article leaves out Allergy/Immmunology and Nuclear Medicine as sub-specialties of IM. Just because the ABIM doesnt cover Allergy, that doesnt detract from its connection to IM. Wikipedia doesnt even have an article for Allergy as a medical specialty.

[edit] UK General medicine

From what I have read, the UK general medicine docs are more like our family practice docs in that they have training in ob/gyn and pediatrics, is that true?

Not true, at least not anymore. In the past UK general physicians were examined on paeds, but not anymore. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but the questioner may be confusing UK general physicians, who are hospital doctors who deal with adult medical (as opposed to surgical, problems) with general practicioners, (often known informally as "family doctors") who work in the community and are the first port of call for the majority of patients, including obs and gynae and paediatrics.

[edit] Nice catch on that error 200.75.217.179

I looked past that error numerous times. Good Grief. --DocJohnny 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classification as start

I have classified this article as a start. It needs to be sourced. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BrEng

Am I right in thinking that the medical specialty is spelt like that even in British English, where the general word is spelt "speciality"? I'm sure I've seen it used in the UK. 81.153.110.216 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IM as the "Doctor's Doctor"

Does anybody know who calls IM Docs "Doctor's Doctor"? I think that this is backwards. IM Docs consult specialties like radiology and pathology to make their diagnoses and then they (IM) treat the patient. radiologists and pathologists are called "Doctor's Doctors" because their job is to advise other doctors and not to treat patients. I think we should delete that section of the article 208.63.240.59 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit on a major historical point of which the article needs further development - the history of internal medicine as a specialty and the derivation of the term "internal medicine." As it was conceived, practitioners of "internal medicine" were consultants, having taken rigorous training beyond their undergraduate medical education in histology, gross pathology, and medical chemistry. General Practitioners, were the 'doctors' to who internists were "doctor's doctors." The term still applies today, however, to the modern consultants of Internal Medicine, the subspecialists. 132.192.82.245 03:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internists without MD or DO, "Biomedical Doctors"

If this section means to say that you can be an internist without being a physician then it's wrong... at least in the US, but probably by definition. Whatever a "Biomedical Doctor" is, if they aren't licensed to practice medicine then they can in no way be specialized in internal medicine. 208.63.240.59 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you; I was infuriated to see the inclusion of osteopaths as a branch of medicine. It must be emphasised in this page, (if discussion of this psuedoscience is included at all, which it probably shouldn't) that nobody in their right mind would consider and osteopath a practioner of internal medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.118.221 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References Section

Since the references section has no actual references, I've taken it out. Until and unless someone goes through and starts listing citations in the text, there's really no need for it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake information?

The intro mentions "Doctors of Internal Medicine". This is a made up wikipedia term.

It is so misleading that I must put a POV label on it.

Let's not make up information or at least put a citation. JerryVanF (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

More opinions.... "Internists are sometimes referred to as the "doctor's doctor," because they are often called upon to act as consultants to other physicians to help solve puzzling diagnostic problems"

Don't internist refer patients to dermatologists, surgeons, and others. So they ask for consultants and are not always consultants themselves. Aren't some of them rarely consultants but just general doctors?

So either find a citation or just eliminate this personal opinion that really isn't true.

This is not to suggests that internists are dumb. They are probably very smart. JerryVanF (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article was worthy of a POV alert, which I have removed. I have made a big edit on the introduction, and also added a new section on education and training (this came largely from the entry on physician, on which I have previously made a lot of edits). The next section, on definition of an internist, also need a lot of work and has POV issues, as does the list of subspecialities of internal medicine.

--DavidB 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)