[Psychiatrist, quo vadis? Differences between neurology and psychiatry, between molecular- and social engineering as exemplified by standards and continuing education for psychiatrists in the Netherlands].

Changes and growing uncertainty about the professional identity of Dutch psychiatrists can already be recognized in the early years following World War II. This is illustrated by a quotation from H.C. Rümke taken from his speech in 1954 entitled "A Flourishing Psychiatry in Danger." Thus the stage was set for the central theme of this article concerning the mental health care system typical for the Netherlands and the development of multidisciplinary teams. In anticipation of the present situation, some future prognoses are also mentioned from K.P. Kisker's "A Prognosis of Therapeutic Practice in Psychiatry" (German: "Prognose der psychiatrischen Therapeutik") of 1973 in the opening section as background to the question: from today's point of view and in the face of scientific developments threatening the field, how does the need for identity and continuity in psychiatry relate to social, sociopolitical, and cultural factors? The first part of the discussion describes the development from combined neurological specialization to the separate fields of psychiatry and neurology. The second describes present day professional training in psychiatry. The conclusion highlights the efforts of the Dutch Psychiatry Association to use a so-called psychiatrist's profile (1996) to establish a consensus on long-term general acceptance in the comprehensive and multifaceted Dutch psychiatric care system. On the one hand, efforts are being made to maintain the unity of psychiatry, both as a professional field and as a special discipline. On the other hand, it is assumed that, at the end of their professional training, psychiatrists have an almost Protheus-like ability to develop and change in order to be successful in a wide variety of scientific subspecialties, professional roles, and institutional functions.