title: Presidential address, 1990. Should general surgery be redefined?
abstract: The definition of general surgery, adopted by the Canadian Association of General Surgeons in 1983, has raised the expectations of the general surgical community. It was thought, at the time, that a definition that took into account the broad aspects of the specialty would make general surgeons more aware of their role in clinical and teaching activities, counteract the negative effects of subspecialization and prevent further fragmentation. Because of the many changes that have taken place in the 1980s, the author considered that a review of that definition was justified. To address this issue, the author has attempted to answer the following two questions: What are general surgeons doing in 1990? To what extent are they trained to do what they are supposed to do, according to the definition of general surgery? Data were obtained from la Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec in order to answer to the first question; with respect to the second, a questionnaire was sent to the chairmen of the 16 Canadian departments of surgery. The results of the study indicate that the definition of general surgery has not kept up with the times and should be revised. The author suggests that a modified definition should include primary and secondary components of the specialty in order to allow some flexibility. In the event that such a change seems appropriate, head and neck surgery should be only a secondary component of general surgery.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Laval University, Quebec.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Couture
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada; D013502:General Surgery / Q000193:education / Q000639:trends*; D009626:Terminology as Topic