If you were to receive a communication from the Executive Committee about a practice issue that has clinical importance, such as underdiagnosing a malignancy, how would you address the members when you went to the meeting with them?

"Underdiagnosing the malignant potential of a tissue happens all of the time, especially with frozen sections that tend to distort the tissue. If it's a matter of under-calling it on a frozen section, it is common knowledge that such preparations are only crude guides, and one must wait for the permanent mounts to be evaluated for a final diagnosis. If it's a matter of my underdiagnosing the permanent mounts, that would concern me, and I would report that I have learned from this and will be taking the right educational steps needed to prevent this from recurring. Please know that personally I take advantage of getting second opinions on such important calls when I feel there may be some room for subjective interpretation of what I'm seeing, so I don't expect to get such a letter from the committee; but if I do, I would make my case but tell them I will abide by their decision on this."