Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

French

The role of specialization in pharmacy practice is an important issue confronting the profession today. The historical evolution of specialization in American medicine is presented. Medicine, while not a complete model of specialization, probably has the most mature structure of any profession. Pharmacy, in directing its own specialization process, can learn from medicine's experience.

Emergence of specialties is a function of both social and technological change. An increase in the knowledge base and an expanding technology stimulated physicians to specialize. The narrowing technical interests of the medical specialist led to the formation of elite specialty societies. While these organizations initially moved to develop specialty education and training programs, later they came to have a significant impact on the entire medical profession. A major decision for medicine was the requirement that all physicians receive the same general medical education — the M.D. degree — prior to entering specialty training. Advanced specialty training through internship and residency programs predominated over programs offered by degree-granting institutions. Attempts by state agencies to license medical specialists were defeated, and a system of certification by specialty boards has flourished.

The specialization process in pharmacy, however, has not developed to the same extent as in medicine. The process in pharmacy has been characterized by a lack of coordination between involved organizations and institutions. If specialization is to enhance the individual specialties, the profession of pharmacy, and the public interest, it must be developed as a planned, rather than a random, process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Parsons

The professions and social structure. Social Forces 1939; 17: 457–67.

Durkheim

The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press, 1960: 244.

Rosen

Specialization of medicine. New York: Froben Press, 1944: 5.

Ibid., p. 23.

Ibid., p. 30.

Rayack

Professional power and American medicine. Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1967: 205.

Rothstein

WG.

American physicians in the nineteenth century. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972: 207.

Ibid., p. 209.

Fishbein

A history of the American Medical Association, 1847 to 1947. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1947: 74–5.

10.

Storer

DH.

Address. Trans Am Med Assoc 1866; 17: 56.

11.

Moore

, The professions: roles and rules. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970: 148.

12.

Twentieth annual meeting. Trans Am Med Assoc 1869; 20: 28.

13.

Friedson

Profession of medicine. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1970: 146.

14.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 208.

15.

Rayack, Professional power, p. 48.

16.

Friedson, Profession of medicine, p. 31.

17.

Burling

The give and take in hospitals. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1956: Ch. 16.

18.

Bosen

Changing attitudes of the medical profession to specialization. Bull Hist Med 1942; 12: 352.

19.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 209.

20.

Moore, Roles and rules, p. 159.

21.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 214.

22.

Ibid., p. 213.

23.

Goode

WJ.

Community within a community: the professions. Am Sociol Rev 1957; 22: 194–200.

24.

Gilb

CL.

Hidden hierarchies: the professions and government. New York: Harper and Row, 1966: 28–33.

25.

Davis

NS.

Address on the present status and future tendencies of the medical profession in the United States. JAMA 1833; 1: 37–8.

26.

Dunphy

JE.

Medical care, education and research. N Engl J Med 1964; 271: 1245.

27.

Jacobi

Medicine and medical men in the United States. JAMA 1900; 35: 430.

28.

Davis, Address on present status, p. 38.

29.

Fishbein, History of the AMA, p. 135.

30.

Ibid., pp. 579–678.

31.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 215.

32.

Davis

NS.

An important question. JAMA 1888; 11: 741–2.

33.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 216.

34.

Mumford

JG.

The proposed Boston Academy of Medicine. Boston Med Surg J 1902; 146: 129–30.

35.

Preliminary report of the Committee on Organization. JAMA 1901; 36: 1445.

36.

Wyeth

JA.

President's address. Medical Record 1902; 61: 921.

37.

Storer, Address, p. 56.

38.

Byford

WH.

Specialties and specialists. Cincinnati Medical Observer 1857; 2: 213–4.

39.

Bonner

TN.

American doctors and German universities: a chapter in international intellectual relations, 1870–1914. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1963: 13–14, 23–32.

40.

Rothstein, American physicians, p. 14.

41.

Stevens

American medicine and the public interest. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971: 39–41.

42.

Medical education in the United States and Canada. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910.

43.

Stevens, American medicine, p. 151.

44.

Ibid., p. 121.

45.

Ibid., p. 123.

46.

Ibid., p. 127.

47.

Ibid., p. 140.

48.

Ibid., p. 89.

49.

Cordes

Rucker

CW.

History of the American Board of Ophthalmology. Am J Ophthalmol 1962; 53: 251–3, 255–260.

50.

American Board of Medical Specialties. Annual report, 1977–78. Evanston, IL, 1978: 6.

51.

Ibid., pp. 164–6.

52.

Rayack, Professional power, pp. 219–24.

53.

Directory of medical specialists. Chicago: Advisory Board for Medical Specialties, 1940: 466.

54.

Wechsler

Handbook of medical specialties. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1976: 13.

55.

Aring

CD.

Whither the specialty boards? JAMA 1976; 235: 1849–50.

56.

Fisk

ed. Encyclopedia of associations. Vol. 1. 6th ed. Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1970.

Perspectives on Medical Specialization

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References