[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.147.196.37. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 1992

Redefinition of Mohs Surgery-Reply

Author Affiliations

Departments of Dermatology and Pathology University of Texas Medical School 6431 Fannin St, MSB 1.186 Houston TX 77030-1501

Arch Dermatol. 1992;128(11):1547-1548. doi:10.1001/archderm.1992.01680210126024
Abstract

In Reply.—  I received eight letters praising the editorial1 as "telling it like it is" and wishing me good luck in defending myself against the inevitable letters that would come from "uncompromising colleagues with a fanatic, almost religious zeal for Mohs surgery." One letter suggested that "the truth sometimes hurts." As you might expect, 100% of the favorable letters were sent directly to me while 100% of those authors in disagreement wrote directly to the Archives. The latter simply restate the same rhetoric already prevalent in the Mohs literature. I have been incorrectly labeled as a dermatopathologist critical of Mohs surgery simply because I have addressed the pros and cons of the technique. The truth is that all surgical procedures, drugs, and other treatment modalities have advantages and disadvantages. Physicians should think critically about everything that they do to people. I would not be performing over 300 cases of

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