Integrating Science and Art of Medicine

The art of medicine and science of medicine are not antagonistic but supplementary to each other. There are both important differences and similarities between science and arts . Art rediscovers , generation after generation , what is necessary to humanness . Basic elements of art, according to Aristotle , are symmetry, proportion and an organic order of parts in united whole. True art is moral. It seeks to improve life and not to debase it. Even artistic modes needs scientific evaluation .Art does not mean wandering in the wilderness. By enlarge medical professionals try to use and construct all these artistic needs in the human body and soul. It is naïve to say that art does badly what science does well, or the contrary. Illness, disease, and medical context provide the mixture of emotion, drama, irony, humour, blood and gore which is grist to the mill of the novel, play, film and a TV serial. Medicine and art have a common goal to complete what nature cannot bring to a finish, i.e., to reach the ideal, to heal creation. This is done by paying attention. Physician attends the patient, artist attends the nature. Art like medicine is not an arrival. It’s a search. That is why medicine by itself is called an art. Being a doctor, considered as a species of logic and rationality, need not to be frightened by the art, as if it is some thing superfluous. Oscar Wilde said very rightly “Life imitates art far more than the art imitates life” &nbsp

Medical Leadership: Formal and Informal

Medical leadership is conceptualized in two ways. Physicians with formal managerial roles or physicians who act as informal ‘leader’ in daily practices. In formal leadership role, it is interchangeable with the term medical management. Informal leadership is an intrinsic component of physicians’ daily work. Here the physicians act as ‘leaders’ within their clinical role, by organizing clinical work and establishing cross-departmental collaboration. This informal role transcends formal managerial work and thus applies to all physicians. Here all are leaders in their own capacity within their own working arena

Anemia of Chronic Diseases

Objective: To evaluate the etiology and clinicohematological profile of patients with anemia of chronic disease. Patients and Method: Patients with anemia of chronic disease were included. All underwent bone marrow examination, and bone marrow trephine biopsy, where required. Etiology was elucidated on the basis of clinical history and relevant investigations. Diagnosis of anemia of chronic disease was based on increased iron in fragments with decreased or absent siderocytes and sideroblasts Results: Definitive cause of anemia was not ascertained in 57.1%. In the rest of the cases tuberculosis (17.1%) was the commonest. Majority of the patients (54.3%) were more than 60 years of age. Fever (51.4%) was the commonest complaint. Severe anemia was found in 25.8%. Bone marrow iron stain revealed increased iron in stores with absent siderocytes and sideroblasts Conclusion: A high number of unexplained cases (57.1%) highlights the need to characterize the causes of anemia of chronic disease as treatment of underlying disease will actually improve the hemoglobin concentration in these patients