 |
 |
|
|
In the December 5, 1997, issue Dr. Craig Maumus reviewed two district branch newsletters that had offered different perspectives on acquiring APA fellowship. As a relatively recent (1996) fellow, may I offer a few comments?
First, I completely reject Dr. Dang's doubting that anyone can have made exceptional contributions in five or more areas, and I would be very opposed to lowering that standard if fellowship is to continue to be a meaningful designation.
In my own case I had been an examiner for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for nearly 20 years; extensively taught medical students, residents, colleagues, and paraprofessionals; published more than 20 papers in recognized journals; been chair of the organization of doctors (7,000) in Canada's largest city at a very difficult time politically; and been chair of the board and then president of Canada's largest Jewish high school. Furthermore, I am in full-time private practice, not university subsidized.
My only area of agreement with Dr. Dang, and my problem with Dr. Epstein's approach, is the focus on participation at the district branch level. I have seen examples where a district branch is weak, and less deserving people have become officers and pushed themselves forward for fellowship while delaying the process for others far more deserving.
I was fortunate in that in my area a more mature and solid leadership eventually stepped in and appreciated that there can be alternative forms of significant contribution to both the general community and to the medical and psychiatric community warranting the special recognition of fellowship.
Certainly let us become more inclusive, but let it be by broadening our perspectives as to what constitute contributions of excellence, and not by lowering our standards.
Joseph Berger, M.D.
Downsview, Ontario