The Experts below are selected from a list of 11934 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Bill Gillette - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

George D Lundberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • So Long but Not Farewell: The Medscape Journal of Medicine (1999–2009)
    The Medscape Journal of Medicine, 2009
    Co-Authors: Michele Romaine, Steven Zatz, Kaytie Brown, George D Lundberg
    Abstract:

    Dear Readers, After nearly 10 years and thousands of published articles, we regret that the company has decided to cease publication of any new articles in The Medscape Journal of Medicine after January 30, 2009. Please be assured that all previously published articles will remain published and available on the Medscape platform, indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, and – for the next several years – in full text at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ as well.

  • so long but not farewell the Medscape journal of medicine 1999 2009
    The Medscape Journal of Medicine, 2009
    Co-Authors: Michele Romaine, Steven Zatz, Kaytie Brown, George D Lundberg
    Abstract:

    Dear Readers, After nearly 10 years and thousands of published articles, we regret that the company has decided to cease publication of any new articles in The Medscape Journal of Medicine after January 30, 2009. Please be assured that all previously published articles will remain published and available on the Medscape platform, indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, and – for the next several years – in full text at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ as well.

  • thanks to the peer reviewers of Medscape general medicine for 2003 2005
    Medscape general medicine, 2006
    Co-Authors: Michele Romaine, Kaytie Freier, George D Lundberg
    Abstract:

    We at WebMD Health and Medscape, LLC, are convinced that electronic publishing is the right way to communicate health information in the 21st century, because it is better, faster, and cheaper than any other methodology. Medscape General Medicine (MedGenMed) is not a Web site. Rather, it is an exclusively online medical journal where important articles on a wide range of topics are published on the World Wide Web platform. The journal articles are aimed at all physicians, other health professionals, and many members of the public as well. MedGenMed's ever-growing success can be attributed in large part to the work of peer reviewers who have given their time, energy, and expertise so that editors can better determine what is publishable. Following the traditional approach of biomedical journals, MedGenMed's editorial staff maintains the anonymity of reviewers for every manuscript. At this time, we take the opportunity to acknowledge as a group and thank those who performed peer reviews from 2003 to 2005. With their assistance, the journal continues to flourish. Thank you all for your efforts and for your dedicated interest in MedGenMed. Anne Ahlman Mikel Aickin Sharon R. Akabas Victoria Allen Alys Alper Joao Luiz Amaro Lynn L. Amowitz Murthy Andavolu Matthew Anderson Theodore Angelopoulos Roberto Angioli Qasim Ansari Diana Antoniucci Matt Ardunio Sunil Asnani James Atkins Anne-Marie Audet Kevin Ault Orly Avitzur Ricardo Azziz Kamran Badizadegan John Baillie William Balistreri David Bangsberg Theodore Bania Faith Barash Robert L. Barbieri Steve Barrett Vecihi Batuman Robert Beltran Benjamin Bengs James Bennington Alejandro Berenstein David Berger Nancy Berlinger David Bernstein Peter M. Bernstein Jack Bierig Nigel Bird Michael Bissell Linda Blacklidge Wibke Blaicher Steve Blair Carl Blumenthal Paul D. Blumenthal Julien Bogousslavsky Barbara Bolsen Larisa Bomlitz Charles Bond Mark Boulding Marjorie Bowman Worth Boyce Geoffrey Braden Ronald Brecher Peter Bressler Carolyn Brockington Fredrik Broekhuizen Alan Brookhart Robert Bryg Anne Burke Georgine Burke Elizabeth Burton Neil Busis Pedro Cahn Nadia Caidi Jose Calderon Jeffery Callen William Camann Joanne Cantor Linda Cardozo David L. Carr-Locke Brooks Cash Gianina Cazan-London Stebbins Chandor Lin Chang Mark Chastain John Chen Neal Chen Bruce Chertow Ri-Cheng Chian James C. Y. Chou Scott Chudnoff Joaquin Cigarroa Thomas Clarkson Charles Clayman Rosemary Coates Jordan Cohen Stanley Cohen David Cole Terry Coleman Patrick M. Colletti Helen M. Conaglen Sandy Cook Kenneth Cooper Jerry Coovadia Amanda Cotter Julia Cron Bruce Cronstein David Cundiff Anna-Maja Dahlgren George Dailey James Dalen Vanessa Dalton Bruce Dan Paresh Dandona Michael Dansinger Lorraine Dennerstein Karen Desalvo Marc DesLauriers Richard Deyo Adrian M. Di Bisceglie Douglas Dieterich Hans Peter Dietz Karen Donelan John Doull Albert Dreisbach Joost Drenth Douglas A. Drossman James S. Dunn, Jr Denis Dwyre L. Edwards Adrienne Einarson Dean Erdman Paul Ernsberger Viktor Eysselein Tomaso Falcone Julian Falutz Charles Farthing Ronnie Fass Willard Fee Steven Feldman M. Brian Fennerty Rushika Fernandopulle Senait Fisseha Faith Fitzgerald Mark Flyer Sandra Foschi Mary Glenn Fowler Robert Fox Yara Fragoso Erica Frank Gerald Friedland Emily Friedman Gary Friedman Peter Frishauf Vince Fulginiti Joel Gallant William Gardner W Timothy Garvey Richard Gensure Larry Gentilello Samuel Gershon Mehdi Ghazinour Pierre Giglio Stanton Glantz Richard Glass Mark Glaum Charles J. Glueck Gary Goldberg John A. Goldman David Good Richard Gordon Guillaume Gorincour Michal Granot David Grimes Ralph Green Robert Green James Grendell Danielle Groleau Larry Grouse Enza Gucciardi David Guss Robert E. Gutman Werner Hacke Catherine L. Haggerty Stephen B. Hanauer Victoria L. Handa Kenneth Harbert John Hardman Lucinda Harris Steven T. Harris William Hart William Hazzard Sirkku Hellsten Frans M. Helmerhorst Charles Hennekens Robin Herman Richard Hermann Steve K. Herrine Craig Hill Kaaren Hoffman Robert Hogan Bob Hogg Larry Hollier Maria Hordinsky Robert Hornik Richard Horowitz Senzan Hsu Randy Hyer Vincent Iacopino Robert Ilaria, Jr Roger Illingworth Keith Bryan Isaacson Robert Itiger Danny O. Jacobs Hossein Jadvar Roxanne Jamshidi Carol S. Johnston Josephine Johnston Val Jones Connie Jorgensen Nirupama Kakarla Kimberly R. Kalli Sunanda V. Kane Matt Kapklein Norman Kaplan Alison Karasz David Karp Jerome Kassirer Elly Katabira David Kates David Katz Vern Katz Andrew Kaunitz Rainu Kaushal Stephen Keay Emmet B. Keeffe Joseph Keffer Bob Kennedy Laura Kettel-Khan William Keye, Jr Mona Khanna Howard Kilbride Youngmee Kim Kennith Kizer Mark Klebanoff Brian Klepper Bonnie Klugman Michael Kochman Ernest Kohorn Baprinath Konety Peter Kovacs Tom Kovesi Mitzi Krockover Krzysztof M. Kuczkowski Sandhya A. Lagoo-Deenadayalan Richard Lalonde Nicolas Lambrou Michael Landry Joep Lange Susan A. Lanham-New Bret A. Lashner Stephen Latham Mark Leavitt Andrew Lee Richard Lent Christopher J. Lettieri Bernard Levin Rachel Levine Joseph Li Gary R. Lichtenstein Desiree Lie Cheryl Liechty Aliza Lifshitz Charles Lightdale Ken Lim Seng Gee Lim Antonios Liolios Jerod Loeb Helen Lotery Freidrich Luft George Lundberg Patricia Lundberg Deborah Lyon Richard MacDermott Margo Maine Dennis Maki Henri Manasse Janet Marchibroda Howard Markel Maurie Markman Richard Marlar Gregory S. Martin Anna Marusic Gertraud Maskarinec Allen Mathies Barbara Maxwell Peter G. McGovern John McHutchison Robert McKenna Trent McLaughlin Clifton Meador Klaus Mergener Dylan Miller Margie Miller Mike Miller Stephen Miller Raffy Mirzayan Mohamed Mitwally David Mock Kelly Molpus Julio Montaner John Moxley Ellen Mozurkewich Joia S. Mukherjee James Lee Murray Steven D. Nathan Ann Nelson Shawna Nesbitt Marion Nestle Rebecca Newton A.B. Niculescu Karin Nielsen Jeri W. Nieves Israel Nissenkorn Manny Noakes Nawal Nour Magne Nylenna Jim O'Connor Mark O'Hollaren Michel Odent Brant K. Oelschlager Leanne Olansky Michael O'Leary Ivan Oransky June Osborn Mary A. Ott John Overbeke Ora Paltiel Theodore Parran Ora Pateil Amar Patel Vimla Patel Roland Patry Carlos A. Pellegrini Fred Pescatore Frank Pettyjohn Praphan Phanuphak Duane Pinto Roy Pitkin Kris Poppe Vera Price Kathleen I. Pritchard Sadeq Quraishi Takakad Ramachandran John Randolph Ian R. Reid Marc Rendell Judy Ribble Kristin Richardson Julius Richmond Tomas Riman Yehuda Ringel Anthony Robbins Don Rockey Vanessa Rodie Nancy Rodriques Rene Rodriquez Mary Romeryn Linda Rooda Susan Roseff Lisa Rosenbaum Simona Rossi David Rowland Len Rubenstein Ross Rubin Sabine Rudnik-Schoneborn Thomas Russell Anil Rustgi Marwan Sabbagh Paolo Salvalaggio Wallace Sampson William Sanderson Daniel Sands Stephanie Sansom Sean Savitz Mark Scarupa Amy Schalet Walton Schalick Priscilla Scherer Joshua Schier Andy Schmidt Peter J. Schmidt Sebastian Schneeweiss Dale Schoeller Stephen Schoenbaum Robert T. Schooley William Schwartz Barry Sears Mary Seeman Rita Shane Michael Shannon Prateek Sharma Steve Sheaffer Andrew F. Shorr William Sheehan Bill Silberg Stephen Silberstein Lee Simon Steven Simon Suzanne Sims Raghubir Singh Sonal Singh Olivia Smart Jeffrey Smith Robert A. Smith Susan Smith Yolanda Smith Karen Smith-McCune Jack Sobel Alfred Sommer Anil K. Sood Vincent Soriano Bonny Specker James Stacey Andrea Steinborn Aaron Stone Michael Sukoff Rosa Ana Tang Eugen Tarnow Caroline Taylor Diane Wallace Taylor David Thom James Thompson David Tiersten Cathy Tokarski Andrea Tramarin Tram Tran Robert Tranquada George Triadafilopoulos Robert Utiger Charles van der Horst Karen Van Hoesen Charles Vega John Veinot Stefano Vela Anthony Visco Lara Vu Robert Wachter Brian Wagner L. Lewis Wall Sharon Walmsley Maria Wawer Elspeth Whitby William Whitehead Ira Williams Mark Williams Steven S. Witkin Viroj Wiwanitkit Sage Weiner Stan Weiss Ian Weller Sidney Wolfe Bob Wood Kevan R. Wylie Judith Wylie-Rosett Matthew Wynia Steven L. Young Steven Zelicof Rowen K. Zetterman Penelope Ziegler

  • webcast video editorials category i cme credit for reading journal articles on Medscape
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: George D Lundberg
    Abstract:

    Medicine changes every day as scientific knowledge advances. The practice of medicine by physicians must also change in response to this changing knowledge. Organized programs to keep physicians up to date are called Continuing Medical Education (CME) or Continuing Professional Development (CPD) depending on which country you are in. For many decades, surveys have indicated that doctors obtain most of their new medical information from reading medical journals. But it wasn't until the mid-1990s that, under the leadership of the Journal of the American Medical Association, formal Category One CME credit could be earned by doctors for reading medical journals. The newest surveys in the early 21st century show that US physicians now get most of their new medical information from the Internet. So, today, in response to these changing times, Medscape combines the two -- The Program -- Journal-based Category I CME credit, and the medical Internet at Medscape General Medicine. Soon, other journals in our Medscape Publishers Circle will join this program. Read -- learn -- pass the test -- get CME credit -- on your own time -- all free of charge. The old and trusted peer-reviewed medical journal and the new and increasingly trustworthy medical Internet -- all on Medscape from WebMD. That's my opinion. I'm Dr. George Lundberg, Editor of MedGenMed.

  • webcast video editorials announcing the launch of the learning curve the esection of Medscape general medicine for students and residents
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: George D Lundberg
    Abstract:

    TLC stands for "tender loving care"; now TLC also stands for "The Learning Curve." Yesterday, Teri Reynolds, PhD, a medical student at the University of California at San Francisco, announced in an editorial[1] the launch of this newest eSection of MedGenMed to be devoted to readers and authors in all countries who are students and residents. Teri is the founding Editor. There is an outstanding Editorial Board at launch, consisting of Asaf Bitton, MD, of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts; Rahesh Gupta, MPH, of Stanford University, California; and Kayvon Modjarrad, MSPH, PhD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham. I am amazed by the academic and intellectual levels already achieved by these "young" people. It is obvious that both the future of medicine and the future of Medscape rest with students and physicians in training. Of course, all physicians must be lifelong learners and that is why CME and CPD are so important. But let's face it. The knowledge gained in medical school and the practice skills and habits developed during residency influence physicians' lifelong decisions and actions. Medscape enjoys the registration of several hundred thousand members who self-designate as students, roughly half from the United States and half from 230 other countries. Medscape does not ask physicians whether they are residents, so we don't know that number but it is certainly large. We invite you to read and contribute to TLC; to spread the word about this new resource to your fellow learners; and if you wish to do more, volunteer for a leadership role, such as membership on the Editorial Board, as we continue to create "one world of medical information." That's my opinion. I'm Dr. George Lundberg, Editor of MedGenMed. Readers are encouraged to respond for the editor's eye only or for consideration for publication via email: ten.dmbew@grebdnulg.

Thomas A M Kramer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Medscape psychopharmacology today a plea for biased information
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas A M Kramer
    Abstract:

    There is increasing concern and disdain among practitioners of psychopharmacology about information provided to us from the pharmaceutical industry as a function of their marketing efforts. Some practitioners will not talk to pharmaceutical representatives for fear of receiving biased information. I struggle with this attitude. Although it is clearly true that the accuracy and integrity of information varies and some sources are better than others, I have always found that more information is better when one is trying to make decisions about anything, including prescribing psychotropics. I have never been impressed that ignorance is bliss, or even useful or protective of something. To a certain extent, all information is subject to some bias from its source. The only questions are how much bias, and what it is biased toward or against.

  • Medscape psychopharmacology today promotional talks for the pharmaceutical industry
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas A M Kramer
    Abstract:

    Medical education in the United States has begun to embrace a new paradigm -- core competencies. The idea behind this paradigm is that it is no longer sufficient to provide education to students and physicians, but that the education system must also somehow ascertain individual competency. As a point of departure for the adoption of the competency model, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (the institution responsible for residency training) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (the institution responsible for Board certification) have agreed on 6 general categories of competency. A discussion of all 6 of these is beyond the scope of this column, so I will focus on one of them: "practice-based learning." Practice-based learning is defined as the ability of physicians to remain knowledgeable and current in their field throughout their career. Traditionally, physicians have maintained currency through some combination of the current literature and continuing medical education (CME) programs in their field. In psychopharmacology, currency is particularly crucial since we have the delightful problem of multiple new agents and new uses for old agents becoming available to us on a routine basis. How do you learn how to use new medications, or discover new uses for old ones? Often, the literature is less than helpful. Clinical trials that can be easily extrapolated into clinical practice are few and far between. Moreover, although drug representatives try to tell us how to use their products, they have problems with credibility and lack of experience -- especially as sales forces for most pharmaceutical companies have evolved from having backgrounds in pharmacy training to ones in marketing training. If you are extremely lucky, you have a colleague easily accessible to you who has experience doing what you would like to learn about. Unfortunately, rarely are we able to find such a colleague. Thus we come to the most positive and constructive reason for drug company-sponsored programs. Colleagues need to share their experience. Pharmaceutical companies have the resources to facilitate such sharing by having a practitioner who has had experience with their product describe it to other practitioners. It is important to understand that there are 2 distinctly different kinds of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored programs. The key distinction between them is whether they are being given for formal (accredited) CME credit. Pharmaceutical funding for CME programs is unrestricted, meaning the money is paid as a grant, with no influence over the content. Promotional programs, on the other hand, are paid for by the pharmaceutical company with a clear and unambiguous goal of promoting their product. I started doing drug talks of both varieties in the early 1990s. I enjoyed doing them immensely. I love to teach psychopharmacology, and this was an opportunity to do that and get paid extra money. Having been in academics for my whole career, these talks provided me with an opportunity to get out and talk to full-time practitioners about the realities of their practice, and I learned from them at least as much as I taught them. Moreover, I never felt any degree of compromise of my principles. The clear message I got from the drug reps who hired me was to go out there and be entertaining. If I could say something nice about their product, that was fine, but certainly I never felt it was required. As one rep said to me: "It's my job to be the salesman. Your job is to provide a reason to get all the docs in the room and create goodwill so they will listen to me after they listen to you." I worked for a number of competing pharmaceutical companies and was proud of the fact that they would all compliment me for being fair, balanced, and unbiased. Four years ago, I took a new job that required me to have no outside income or any professional connection to anything except the institution that was my employer. As a result, I severed all ties with the pharmaceutical industry -- and was thus truly out of the loop for this period of time. About a year and a half ago, I left that job and now have a job in which nonclinical outside income is not a problem. I wanted to get back to doing drug talks. What awaited me was a welcome to a new and different world. The process of doing CME talks (eg, Grand Rounds presentations, etc.) has not changed very much, and I have had a good time doing a few of those. Promotional talks, however, are a very different story. Recent litigation about pharmaceutical companies actively marketing off-label indications to physicians and increased interest in pharmaceutical marketing practices by the federal government have made pharmaceutical companies considerably more restrictive about what can and cannot be said at a promotional talk. One company in particular insisted that I attend a 2-day speaker training program before I did talks for them. When I pointed out that I had done over 150 drug talks, they were unmoved. They said that the training program was a requirement for speakers, and I quickly found out why. A substantial portion of the training involved explaining to us what we could not say. Anything that was not explicitly stated in the labeling information (product insert) for the drug could not be said in the talk. They gave us the slides that we were to use. We could not add any slides, even if it was purely disease-related material or just cartoons. And we could not discuss our individual clinical experience. The only exception to the requirements came with questions: if we were asked direct questions about off-label uses or anything else that was not in the product insert (such as our clinical experience), we were allowed to answer them. This is the new world of promotional drug talks. In contrast to my old drug rep's statement, we were told at speaker training: "When you are giving a talk for us, at that time you are an employee of this company and have to abide by all the restrictions that any employee would in dealing with physicians." In many respects, we have come full circle. Many years ago, as noted above, drug reps for the most part were pharmacists. Later they were marketers, and now, at least in part, physicians are being asked to do some of those same marketing tasks in talks not dissimilar to the drug reps' presentations. Are there ways around or even out of this conundrum? Certainly doing these presentations in a way that encourages a lot of question-and-answer interaction will bring them closer to what they used to be -- that is, a frank discussion of what physicians in attendance are seeking: your clinical experience with the drug. Attendees may learn that they are better served by asking the speaker pointed and direct questions. Whether physicians will continue to be interested in attending programs in which the speaker gives a similar talk to what they have already heard from the drug rep in their office remains to be seen. Most importantly, we have an obligation as practitioners to educate each other. Clearly, the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in that process is a moving target.

  • Medscape psychopharmacology today psychopharmacology in the new york times
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas A M Kramer
    Abstract:

    Lately, the most important professional reading that I have been doing is not to be found in any of the journals to which I subscribe, but rather, in The New York Times. I take the train to work, and my routine is to read the Times on the train on the way in, and journals on the way home. Now, however, since I have been reading so much about psychopharmacology in the Times in the mornings, my conditioning is such that when I get to work, I feel like I should be home.

  • Medscape psychopharmacology today talking points about antidepressants and suicide
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas A M Kramer
    Abstract:

    Many people have asked me for advice about how to respond to questions from patients and the lay public about the recent press, and ultimately US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings, about suicidality and antidepressants. I thought it might be helpful to the readership to present some talking points about this issue which may be used in responding to these questions.

  • Medscape psychopharmacology today all the things they taught us that were wrong
    Medscape general medicine, 2004
    Co-Authors: Thomas A M Kramer
    Abstract:

    One of the many wonderful things I learned in medical school is that my parents were probably wrong about not letting me go swimming after I ate. Actually, making me wait an hour probably made it more likely that I would have a cramp in the water. When it comes to debunking myths, I believe there are two kinds of people: those who think it is wonderful and those who think it is horrible. My response is firmly in the former category. I see the dispelling of supposed truths as progress — as evidence that we are moving forward, constantly questioning and continuously learning. I very much enjoyed the recent programs by the television journalist John Stossel in which he demonstrated that many accepted truisms are false. With this column, I would like to indulge in some myth-busting for psychopharmacology, and hopefully my colleagues who also enjoy questioning authority will enjoy and perhaps even contribute to this discussion. Depression Antidepressants treat depression, right? Not when I was a resident in the 1980s (OK, in the early 1980s). I was taught that antidepressants were only effective for those depressions that had the physical symptoms associated with the diagnosis of major depression, such as a sleep disturbance, an eating disturbance, diurnal variation, etc. These were then referred to as endogenous depressions, and these were the only depressions that required medication Other depressions that were a result of some grief-provoking event or of coping with some form of tragedy were referred to as reactive depressions and could only be treated with psychotherapy. I have discussed the distinction between endogenous vs reactive depression in a previous column (“Endogenous Versus Exogenous: Still Not the Issue”), and although I have no desire to revisit that discussion here, I present this to you as the first in a series of truisms about the psychopharmacologic treatment of depression that our profession embraced and then discarded.

Vishwanath Golash - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Necrotizing fasciitis following laparoscopic total extra peritoneal repair of left inguinal hernia.
    Journal of Minimal Access Surgery, 2020
    Co-Authors: Vishwanath Golash
    Abstract:

    There are rare reports of necrotizing fasciitis (NF) following laparoscopic surgery. The clinical presentation of this condition may be delayed due to non-specific symptoms and sign. The diagnosis is essentially clinical and early recognition is crucial in the management. We present a case of NF of the lower abdominal wall extending to thigh, scrotum and perianal area following the laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair of left inguinal hernia managed with extensive debridment, removal of mesh, antibiotic, and skin grafting. He was seen 6 months after his surgeries and had no disability. The extensive search on Medline, Medscape, and Google engine revealed only one case report of NF following laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia that died and this is the second case report and the only surviving one.

  • Unusual case - Necrotizing fasciitis following laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of left inguinal hernia
    2007
    Co-Authors: Vishwanath Golash
    Abstract:

    There are rare reports of necrotizing fasciitis (NF) following laparoscopic surgery. The clinical presentation of this condition may be delayed due to non-specific symptoms and sign. The diagnosis is essentially clinical and early recognition is crucial in the management. We present a case of NF of the lower abdominal wall extending to thigh, scrotum and perianal area following the laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair of left inguinal hernia managed with extensive debridment, removal of mesh, antibiotic, and skin grafting. He was seen 6 months after his surgeries and had no disability. The extensive search on Medline, Medscape, and Google engine revealed only one case report of NF following laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia that died and this is the second case report and the only surviving one.

Lee F Monaghan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • ‘Physician Heal Thyself’, Part 2: Debating clinicians’ bodyweight
    Social Theory & Health, 2010
    Co-Authors: Lee F Monaghan
    Abstract:

    Clinicians are being urged personally to fight fat lest their credibility, health and effectiveness are threatened. Contributing to burgeoning critical weight studies, this paper extends the analysis presented in ‘Physician Heal Thyself’, Part 1 (Monaghan, 2010). Drawing from over 200 postings from an Internet site, Medscape , on the subject of ‘overweight’ clinicians, this paper explores three types of accountability: the excusable, the critically compliant and the justifiably resistant. Centrally, this paper critiques obesity discourse, which encircles clinicians’ embodied identities, and points the way towards an approach that makes sociological and clinical sense.

  • ‘Physician Heal Thyself’, Part 1: A qualitative analysis of an online debate about clinicians’ bodyweight
    Social Theory & Health, 2010
    Co-Authors: Lee F Monaghan
    Abstract:

    Physicians and other clinicians are being urged to regulate their weight and fight fat. This and a second paper (Monaghan, 2010) offer a qualitative analysis of an online debate on this issue. A webcast video editorial, roundtable discussion and over 200 postings on Medscape provide rich data for analysing various discursive framings. This paper introduces the online debate, describes the video editorial and roundtable discussion. Engaging members’ subsequent postings, one particular framing is then explored: the acquiescent. Here contributors disparaged overweight/obesity/fatness and personal (in)actions assumed to cause unwanted weight-gain, while stressing individual responsibility for ‘correcting’ this. Acquiescence comprised three main discursive strands: ensuring occupational credibility, the health rationale and rejecting other clinicians’ excuses. Analytically, these data are interpreted within a framework that is critical of obesity discourse, rather than critical of individuals who risk being discredited as overweight, obese or too fat.