Content and formal problems of teaching pathology.
The present comment of mine will dwell mainly on my impressions about the format of teaching. It seems to be very difficult to judge how much classic practical training should be given since for example in histology, it may often go deep into details probably irrelevant for the students. It must be realized, however, that the rapid increase in general knowledge and in the special demands of various medical specialities also impose an ever-increasing stress on the pathologist himself. Therefore it is necessary to define certain limits, however difficult a problem this may be. I have proposed an integrated presentation. The integration should, however, not be made by the clinician as the first and the pathologist as the second violinist. In this case the clinician may misinterpret pathology and may interfere with the pathologist in presenting pathology with appropriate weight and adequate importance. The moderator is the director of the pathology department. No special clinical details are given but those sufficient to ensure a better understanding of the pathological changes presented. Under these conditions the pathologist has full control of the essential views and details given to the student, thus demonstrating the importance of pathology in medicine.
Jellinek
H
H
2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis Medical University, Budapest, Hungary.
D004501:Education, Medical / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010336:Pathology / Q000193:education*; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods*