Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Other Articles
November 7, 1936


JAMA. 1936;107(19):1582. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.02770450066025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  Of possible interest to medical examiners for life insurance companies is this personal experience: In applying for additional insurance I had the usual examination, but the policy applied for was refused on the basis of hypertension. Blood pressure examinations had been made in New York and in Chicago at frequent intervals for several years in the past and ran about 135/88. The age is 55. When the adverse report was made, a rereading from the first found, 160/98, gave 140/90 the following day. Subsequent readings ran along 135-138 systolic. Because of nasal congestion, I have used various commercial vasoconstricting preparations, such as ephedrine, epinephrine and more recently a volatile drug introduced by breathing through a small tube, made by a well known Philadelphia pharmaceutical house. As an experiment I used this tube according to directions and had my blood pressure read by the original medical examiner, who

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview