[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.94.5. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 6, 1902

SHOULD THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPHTHALMOSCOPE AND TRIAL LENSES?

Author Affiliations

Professor of Ophthalmology in the Cleveland College of Physicians and Surgeons. CLEVELAND, OHIO.

JAMA. 1902;XXXIX(10):529-530. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.52480360009001a
Abstract

Baas says in Handerson's History of Medicine1 that "Specialism is per se an evidence of a civilization of high development: indeed, of one tending toward its downfall," and speaking of the division of medical labor in our larger cities, Handerson2 says that "the dangers of running specialism to seed are very manifest."

It might be possible to demonstrate historically that excessive specialism is the forerunner of medical decay, so that if in the present discussion I run counter to modern medical thought I may find justification for doing so in the ups and downs of medical progress throughout the ages.

There is no necessity of my calling the attention of the members of this Section to the great importance of the ophthalmoscope as an aid to diagnosis. And yet, I fear that while it is so valuable to us and we accept its findings with such confidence we

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