[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 28, 1903

Eye-Strain and the General Practitioner.

JAMA. 1903;XL(13):861. doi:10.1001/jama.1903.02490130045013

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


Chicago, March 23, 1903.

To the Editor:  —Referring to your review in The Journal of March 14 of Dr. Gould's book, "Biographic Clinics," dealing with the question of eye-strain and its effects, I can not but think it unfortunate that you should adopt such a critical attitude, because the general impression left in the mind of the reader will be that oculists are very prone to exaggerate the importance of eye-strain, and that in the absence of very direct indications the counsel of an oculist will be deemed superfluous and be dispensed with.It may be that Dr. Gould's claims are excessive, but as a general practitioner I do most certainly know that not nearly enough of our patients are referred to the oculist. Provided that a conscientious and skilled refractionist be employed, the fee and time spent in the examination are the only losses to the patient, yet many

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