Ashforth: Technology list found wanting [CMAJ

Technology list found wanting

CMAJ 2000;162:969

See response from: C.E. Caplan

I must address some of the inequities and inaccuracies in Caralee Caplan's editorial in CMAJ's technology issue.¹ In her description of how a list of current technologies in medicine was generated, she commented that she polled people in 34 clinical specialties. As a result, she presented a list in which a substantial number of the new technologies ascribed to certain disciplines actually are imaging or interventional technologies that are performed largely by radiologists. Further, interventional radiology and interventional neuroradiology, subspecialties in their own right, were not even mentioned. It is insulting in this day and age that diagnostic imaging was not considered to be a clinical specialty and that many of the procedures performed by radiologists were categorized by other physicians as being under the purview of their specialty. I realize that to some this may seem like hairsplitting and turf protection, but in an endeavour such as this to catalogue many of the emerging technologies that will have an impact on medical practice I believe appropriate attribution of the technology and technical skills is important. To include angioplasty and stenting of carotid arteries under the heading cardiology or to include functional MRI, SPECT scans, intra-arterial thrombolysis and endovascular coiling of aneurysms under the heading neurology, neurosurgery and vascular surgery is insulting and demeaning to the radiologists across the country who perform the bulk of these procedures. I would encourage Caplan to update her email list to include clinical specialists in diagnostic imaging.

Robert Ashforth
Radiology and diagnostic imaging
University of Alberta Hospital
Edmonton, Alta.

Send a letter to the editor
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction

Reference

Caplan C. A technological journey: specialty spotlights and beyond [editorial]. CMAJ 1999;161(9):1124-7.