Dear Rabbi Lamm, At the suggestion of Rabbi Jacob Reiner, I am forwarding to you a carbon copy of a recent Letter to the Editor which I sent to Rabbi Wurzburger. It discusses the article by Rabbi Tendler in the Spring issue of Tradition. It represents my views as a practicing urologist and I would like it to be considered for publication in the forthcoming Tradition issue. Sincerely, Norman A. Bloom, M.D., Major, USAF. August 31, 1968. To the Editor of Tradition: The article by Rabbi Moses Tendler in the Spring issue of Tradition, “Medical Ethics and Torah Morality,” is so replete with innuendoes, inconsistencies, and gross misstatements of fact that though they were partially refuted in the subsequent article of Dr. Elihu Schimmel, I, as a physician and practicing urologist, feel compelled to comment. Blakiston’s Medical Dictionary defines “iatrogenic” as “referring to the effects of a physician’s words or actions upon the patient.” The etymologist will quickly discern the origin of this term as iatros (physician) and genesthai (to be produced). Rabbi Tendler, in his startling comments on the word “iatrogenesis,” appears to have embarked on a rather unique (and to my knowledge, heretofore unknown) offshoot of etymology: the “science” of word motivation. Thus, not content with the generic derivation of the term, Rabbi Tendler feels compelled to probe the motivation leading to its coinage. The statement that it was coined by physicians so that they may compartmentalize “their ethical concern in a new medical specialty so that it will not interfere with the practice of the healing arts,” though obviously based on Rabbi Tendler’s glaring disdain for and lack of knowledge of medical practice, is based on nothing else. Unlike the test tube, where the interaction of compounds A and B always yields compound C, the interaction of patient and therapy has far more variables and is therefore less predictable. Though a physician may be well aware of the specific and desired ac…