No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
In healthcare, it should be a primary requirement that we define accurately what we are trying to do. The necessity for this intensifies when we are under stress, a part of which is caused by increased technological ingenuity outstripping the general ability to pay for it. Dealing with human beings and their problems, we are person and event oriented; our creed has always been and is the best that can be done for an individual, at a point in time. Increasingly, we must modify this traditional approach by viewing episodic care of the individual as a part of two continua, of the individual in relation to their life span, and of the individual in relation to the community and healthcare system to which all belong. We are not skilled or practised in defining our overall aims.
1. The First Ten Years of the World Health Organisation. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1958.Google Scholar
2. Boorse, C. Health as a philosophical concept. Philosophical Science 1977;44:542–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Huxley, A. Brave New World, London: Chatto and Windus, 1932.Google Scholar
4. Rechnitzer, PA. Ageing, fitness and morbidity. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1983;128:791–2.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Fries, JF, Crapo, LM. Vitality and Aging. San Francisco: WH Freeman, 1981:107.Google Scholar
6. Fries, JF. Aging, illness and health policy: Applications of the compression of morbidity. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1988;31:407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. See note 6. Fries, . 1988;31:407–28.Google Scholar
8. Schneider, EL, Guranaik, JM. The aging of America: Impact on health costs. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990;263:263–440.Google Scholar
9. Fries, JF. The sunny side of aging. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990;263:2354–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar