In an address on the "Progress and Drift in Pathology," J. Mitchell Prudden,1 of New York, points out that the "general practical result of this busy quarter of a century in pathology is the getting together into useful form of a series of tests and methods by which the practitioner can secure greater accuracy in diagnosis and greater precision in treatment than was possible in the earlier days. These new methods in diagnosis, requiring considerable facility and some experience, now form a compact discipline which has been called clinical microscopy.... although strictly a practical adjunct to the work of the practitioner, clinical pathology still largely remains in the hands of the pathologist. This condition of affairs may be wise, and certainly must be convenient—for the practitioner." Prudden shows that the time-consuming tasks of clinical pathology divert the pathologist from lines of work in which lie his most cherished outlooks.
THE HOSPITAL PATHOLOGIST.. JAMA. 1900;XXXIV(12):758. doi:10.1001/jama.1900.02460120054012