The journal Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice has, under Geoff Norman’s leadership, promoted a collaborative approach to investigating educationally-savvy and innovative health care practices, where academic medical educators can work closely with healthcare practitioners to improve patient care and safety. But in medical practice in particular this networked approach is often compromised by a lingering, historically conditioned pattern of heroic individualism (under the banner ‘self help’). In an era promising patient-centredness and inter-professional practices, we must ask: ‘when will medicine, and its informing agent medical education, embrace democratic habits and collectivism?’ The symptom of lingering heroic individualism is particularly prominent in North American medical education. This is echoed in widespread resistance to a government-controlled public health, where the USA remains the only advanced economy that fails to provide universal health care. I track a resistance to collectivist medical-educational reform historically from a mid-nineteenth century nexus of influential thinkers who came, some unwittingly, to shape North American medical education within a Protestant-Capitalist individualist tradition. This tradition still lingers, where some doctors recall a fictional ‘golden age’ of medical practice and education, actually long since eclipsed by fluid inter-professional health care team practices. I cast this tension between conservative traditions of individualism and progressive collectivism as a political issue.

中文翻译：

---

通过医学教育拥抱集体


《健康科学教育进展：理论与实践》杂志在杰夫·诺曼的领导下，推广了一种协作方法来研究教育和创新的医疗保健实践，学术医学教育者可以与医疗保健从业者密切合作，以改善患者护理和安全。但特别是在医疗实践中，这种网络化的方法常常受到挥之不去的、历史条件下的英雄个人主义模式（打着“自助”的旗号）的损害。在一个承诺以患者为中心和跨专业实践的时代，我们必须问：“医学及其信息媒介医学教育何时才能拥抱民主习惯和集体主义？”英雄个人主义挥之不去的症状在北美医学教育中尤为突出。这与对政府控制的公共卫生的普遍抵制相呼应，美国仍然是唯一未能提供全民医疗保健的发达经济体。我从历史上追踪十九世纪中叶有影响力的思想家对集体主义医学教育改革的抵制，其中一些人无意中在新教资本主义个人主义传统中塑造了北美医学教育。这一传统仍然存在，一些医生回忆起虚构的医疗实践和教育“黄金时代”，但实际上早已因流动的跨专业医疗保健团队实践而黯然失色。我将保守的个人主义传统与进步的集体主义之间的紧张关系视为一个政治问题。