In responding to Upton's discourse arguing for reform of undergraduate health profession curricula to maximise the inclusion of health psychology, it is first important to concede the enormity of the task. After all, psychologists are inherently biased towards their subject, quite simply due to their immersion within it which convinces them of its scope, influence, and relevance to health professionals. Nevertheless, a response will be presented, arguing that health psychology need not be elevated in status within these programmes. Upton constructed his argument around four key areas: (1) What is curriculum content?; (2) Why is curriculum content important?; (3) What do studies of curriculum content say?; and (4) How should curriculum content be chosen? Each of these areas will be revisited within a discussion of "Curriculum content and its appropriateness," which will examine the validity of the evidence upon which key conclusions are based: although a number of interesting issues are raised, the conclusions drawn may seem less definite with further exploration. Initially, however, a description of exactly what health psychology is will be presented. This is to establish respondent credibility, as an erroneous understanding would fundamentally undermine the response. A discussion of the major areas of concern will follow, and three short case scenarios will be used to illustrate some issues that may need to be considered to ensure that psychologists deliver appropriate material to health care professionals. General conclusions will then be drawn, focusing on the importance of interprofessional communication and collaboration to drive curriculum development forward to ensure that students, and ultimately patients, receive effective care. (Contains 1 table.)