ABSTRACT
The current debate on the contribution of Michael Balint's work to general practice has been initiated by Sowerby's (1977) lengthy critique.Sowerby's arguments, however, depend on one particular definition of science, simplify some complex issues, and have rigid and restrictive qualities. I give some examples to illustrate this.Secondly, Sowerby's definition of the science of psychology leads to an intellectual separatism which Balint sought to reduce. The alternative diagnosis of ;depressive illness' is neither more helpful nor precise.Finally, criticisms of Balint seminars which Sowerby perceives as dangerous are challenged. I argue that Balint's approach in verifying and refuting hypotheses in the face of prospective observations and evidence was truly scientific.
Subject(s)
Psychoanalysis , History, 20th Century , Psychoanalysis/history , Psychology/history , Science , United KingdomABSTRACT
The use of lead cutouts to produce small beams in electron therapy results in a reduced dose to the patient. The authors investigated this effect for beams with energies less than 8 MeV and diameters of 3 cm or less. Dose measurements were obtained using film and an ionization chamber. Based on these values, corrections were established to account for dose reduction due to cutout spaces and air spaces between the end of the electron cone and the skin surface. Data were also obtained on the dose increase due to backscattering from internal eyeshields.