Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface to the fourth edition
- Layout of the fourth edition
- Preface to the first edition
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Problem: the illness
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The malaise of medical manuscripts
- 3 The difficulties of English as an additional language
- Part II Solution: symptomatic relief
- Part III Practice: recuperation
- Appendix British–American English
- References and further reading
- Index
2 - The malaise of medical manuscripts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2014
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface to the fourth edition
- Layout of the fourth edition
- Preface to the first edition
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Problem: the illness
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The malaise of medical manuscripts
- 3 The difficulties of English as an additional language
- Part II Solution: symptomatic relief
- Part III Practice: recuperation
- Appendix British–American English
- References and further reading
- Index
Summary
There is probably more bad writing in medical journals than in any other kind of periodical.
(Sir Andrew Macphail, 1864–1938, Professor of the History of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal; quoted by C. Gray. CMAJ’s century reflects a profession and a country. CMAJ 2011; 183: 17–21.)Do we think in words? It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter even if we do not initially form our ideas in words. We have only words to express those ideas to others. If medical researchers write descriptions of experimental work, whether in basic research or applied clinical trials, that confuse readers assumed to be of equal knowledge and understanding, then that is the responsibility of the writers not the readers, who might justifiably wonder whether the conduct of the research had been similarly confused. (The difference between ‘responsibility’ and ‘fault’ serves a purpose here: writers should not necessarily be blamed for their bad habits.)
Medicine is a practical subject so here is an example of confused writing, taken from a clinical report. The investigators were relating the rate of infusion of a drug to its concentration in the blood. They wrote,
The infusion rate was then increased and blood was taken 4, 8, 12 and 20 minutes after the new target concentration had been achieved [our italics].
The meaning of this sentence is clear: blood was taken to ascertain what happened after the new, desired concentration had been reached. This is a reasonable thing to want to know; after all, if the concentration varied, then the effect could be unpredictable.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Medical WritingA Prescription for Clarity, pp. 3 - 10Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014