In which Dr Fraser explains why it’s easier for some surgeons to perform an operation than to make a photocopy.
There is a widespread but erroneous belief that surgeons, being presumed to be dexterous, are therefore technocrats, well versed in the operation of any or all of the multiplicity of appliances that virtually govern our modern existence. Not so.
There may be several reasons for this. One of these, held dear by my wife, is that surgeons don’t actually do anything for themselves. For example, other people gown them and put on their gloves; instruments are placed in their impatient, outstretched hands; their moist brows are mopped, as is the floor when they are finished; and their garbled reports are interpreted and transcribed by people whom they never see and seldom acknowledge. The subtle expectation of similar attention at home is not appreciated. Yet, invariably, they are called upon to perform such tasks as opening bottles, programming VCRs, changing wheels, tying on worm-laden fish hooks, and dressing impossibly struggling young children with the exhortation, “Come on. You’re supposed to be good with your hands!”
I am. I was. And then again, I’m not.
You see, modern machines—computers and the like—can do the most amazing things for you if you know what you want them to do and how to tell them to do it. You have to understand them and, as far as I can make out, the best way is—as with golfing or using the toilet—to learn at an early age.
Copying machines are another source of alarm and despondency. They demand access codes then be siege with options: number of copies, one side or both, scale down, enlarge, and repeat run. Pretty heavy stuff, or so it seems to me.
Where I used to work, on the wall by the photocopier is an enlargement (done on the wretched machine!) of a cartoon depicting an older gentleman saying to his younger, nubile companion, “I am always careful around this copier. I think it can smell fear.” Just above the breast pocket of his coat someone has neatly penciled in my initials.
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org