Several disadvantages struck me, however. First, the depth to which all the basic science is plumbed may be excessive for an ostensibly clinical volume (although each chapter and section can stand apart—and thus need not be read completely). Second, despite the commendable organization of the entire volume, several essential questions—to my practice at least—remain unanswered. First, what is the role of nonphysician healers (physical therapists, nurses, massage therapists, naturopaths, homeopaths) and unlicensed healers (acupuncturists, biofeedback practitioners) and their modalities (biofeedback, imagery, meditation, and relaxation, briefly mentioned on page 282)? Why are drugs that bear other, more correct, designations (neuroleptics, antipsychotics) still referred to with the antiquated title of "major tranquilizers"? Why is there so little analysis of methadone as a narcotic analgesic?