Letter from Frank J. Veith, MD to Frank R. Lewis, MDFrom: Frank J. Veith, MD American Board of Vascular Surgery April 27, 2004 Dear Frank (Lewis): It was good seeing you at the April 2, 2004 meeting of the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS) in Bethesda, and listening to you express the position of the American Board of Surgery (ABS) regarding training and certification issues in vascular surgery. The Primary Certificate in vascular surgery initiative is a way of partly solving some of the training problems in our specialty, and the American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) appreciates your leadership in this initiative. We also appreciate the ABS' recognition that vascular surgery has matured into a distinct and defined. specialty which justifies and requires an action like the Primary Certificate process. It was also gratifying that the APDVS members approved (by a 66 to 7 vote) a motion to support the pursuit of an ARMS approved independent ABVS and the Primary Certificate initiative. It is likely that the overwhelming nature of the APD VS support of the Primary Certificate was due to the fact that the motion to support it was a part of the motion to support the ABVS. However, the ABVS would like you and the other Directors of the ABS to understand that the Primary Certificate helps to solve only some of the problems which our specialty faces at present and will face in the future. As detailed in our ABMS application, the problems and issues can only' be resolved if vascular surgery has an independent board of vascular surgery approved by the ABMS. Accordingly, by this, letter, the American Board of Vascular Surgery is requesting that the Directors of the American Board of Surgery formally consider the Primary. Certificate as a -way station to a fully independent and approved ABVS. In addition, the ABVS requests that the Directors of the ABS formally consider supporting our application for an independent Board.As we indicated in Bethesda, all other surgical specialties which have reached vascular surgery's degree of development and definition are represented by fully independent Boards. If the ABS were to support our initiative with the ABMS, it will assure the close collaboration and collegiality which vascular surgery has always indicated that they would like to have with the ABS. I look forward to your response to this letter. All of the Directors of the ABVS would, be happy to interact further with you and the other ABS Directors to see if we can work out an arrangement where vascular surgery can have the advantages of an independent Board and still work closely with general surgery, the ABS and other surgical specialties. We all believe that the interests of all concerned, including most importantly our patients, can best be served by such an arrangement. With warmest regards, Sincerely, Frank J. Veith, MD. |
|---|