VOL 48: FEBRUARY • FÉVRIER 2002 Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien 259
letters
correspondance
Patients want their doctors
I
n response to the editorial1 by Dr S.L.Librach, “Role of family physicians in end-of-life care,” I can only quote a patient that I saw recently: “I don’t want some stranger looking after me when I’m dying; I want my doctor!”
—Blair Pierce, MD, CCFP London, Ont by e-mail Reference
1. Librach SL. Role of family physicians in end-of-life care.
Rhetoric, role, and reality [editorial]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:1941-3 (Eng), 1949-51 (Fr).
Academic family medicine a lot like yeast
I
must respond to the letter1 by Dr Tim McDowell, who thinks that the atti- tude of academic family medicine2,3 is divisive and elitist and alienates “on- the-ground” family physicians. He then suggests that the definition of family medicine should be broadened and become inclusive.Although I whole-heartedly support the latter idea, I think that academic family medicine is like yeast in dough:
if it serves to make us think about what we do, then it is serving one of its func- tions. Change is difficult for all of us, and it is easy to blame the agent fer- menting that change. I suggest that the perception of academic family medicine as divisive or elitist is an unwarranted side effect. And, as such, the charge should be disregarded.
I suspect that, in the end, we are defined by what we do and not by our label. I appreciate that politicians and health care planners need definitions of family medicine and primary care, as well as population predictions. Family physi- cians with an academic interest must con- tribute to this important decision making.
Other family physicians, whatever their interest, can contribute to this debate, and it would be foolhardy to ignore their opinions.
—Nick Unsworth, MA, MB, CCFP, MRCGP Liphook, United Kingdom by fax References
1. McDowell T. Aren’t we all family physicians? [letter]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:2209.
2. McWhinney IR. Time, change, and family practice [edito- rial]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:1365-7 (Eng), 1374-6 (Fr).
3. Katz A. Definition lacks clarity [letter]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:1721.
Symbols and spellings in our December issue
I
was pleased and interested in read- ing the article1 by Walter Rosser in December’s issue of Canadian Family Physician to see two inspiring physi- cians recognized for their extraordinary work and dedication. I was perplexed, however, by the cover, and went to my new Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Edition), which my wife gave me as a Christmas gift, for help.Yup! The plural of hero is “heroes.”
I then asked my wife whether the plural of potato ends in “s” or “es.” She replied that it is “es,” and as always, she was right. This got me wondering.
Do all English words that end in “o”
become pluralized by adding “es”?
My wife suggested “inferno.” Collins English Dictionary states that the plu- ral is “infernos.” Hmm. I decided to check “imbroglio.” The plural is
“imbroglios.”
So, after this exhaustive search, what are we to conclude? Fifty percent of English words ending in “o” require
“es” to form the plural, and 50% simply add “s”? Or is it more accurate to say that English words beginning with “i”
and ending in “o” require “s” to form the plural and all others require “es”?
I think there could be a problem here with “sampling bias,” and I suspect the only firm conclusion that one can draw
from this data is the ever-popular “more research is needed”!
—Jeff Sloan, MD, CCFP Napanee, Ont by e-mail Reference
1. Rosser WW. Heros [Reflections]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:2463-4.
…
I
read with interest the Reflections arti- cle “Heros”1 in the December issue of Canadian Family Physician.I was rather upset, however, with the cover of that issue. Instead of the staff of Aesculapius it showed the staff of Hermes, the god of merchants and thieves.
—A.J. Verster, MD, CCFP Beamsville, Ont by e-mail Reference
1. Rosser WW. Heros [Reflections]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:2463-4.
…
H
ow could a reputable medical jour- nal like Canadian Family Physician print on its December 2001 cover the staff of Hermes, the messenger of the gods (two snakes) instead of the staff of Aesculapius (one snake), which I am sure was intended.At first I thought this might be an article about the US Army Medical Corps, who have perpetuated this error.
But no, the article was about Canadian doctors.
Then, to top it, you misspelled the English plural of “hero.” It should be
“heroes” with an “e.”
Where was your proofreader this month?
—Mary Sidgwick, MB, CCFP Don Mills, Ont by mail
Response
W
e understand that our December cover has caused disquiet among260 Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien VOL 48: FEBRUARY • FÉVRIER 2002
letters
correspondance
some readers. We chose the image of a caduceus, based on the staff of Hermes with two snakes, and not the symbol of Aesculapius, with one snake, to repre- sent all of medicine (not just family medicine). Incidentally, our College shield, incorporated in the new symbol designed 2 years ago, has a gavel, not a staff, entwined by one snake. In addi- tion, we chose to use the older, alterna- tive spelling of “heroes” that was used in the featured article.
—Tony Reid Scientific Editor
More reason not to use stirrups
I
was interested to read the “Practice Tips” article1 by Michelle Greiver in the October 2001 issue of Canadian Family Physician, entitled “No stirrups?”In medical school and family medi- cine residency training, I also was encouraged and taught by several female family physicians specifically not to use stirrups when doing pel- vic examinations. Their rationale was not only that stirrups were uncomfort- able, but that using them seemed to cause patients to tense up more, per- haps because the procedure appeared more mechanical.
As I worked in various hospitals and clinics through medical school, residency, and several years of being a locum tenens physician, my experi- ence with stirrups was that most were in poor repair and tended to swing outward into impossible angles at the worst possible time, adding to patients’ discomfort. This reinforced my decision not to use stirrups in my own practice.
An additional tip I find helpful is to have an examining table with a
slide-out footrest at the end. The sliding part is usually an inch or so lower than the main part of the table, and this gives more than enough room for the handle of the speculum to fit when doing the examination.
—Jennifer Walker, MD, CCFP Edmonton, Alta by e-mail Reference
1. Greiver M. No stirrups? [Practice Tips]. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:1979.
Correction
T
here was an error in the spelling of Dr Bourget’s name in Dr Rosser’s Reflections piece, “Heros” (Can Fam Physician 2001;47:2463-4).Canadian Family Physician apolo- gizes for any distress or embarrass- ment this error might have caused Dr Bourget.
