[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 1962


Author Affiliations

624 Medical Arts Building Portland 5, Ore.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1962;67(2):275-276. doi:10.1001/archopht.1962.00960020277024

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


The following reply to Dr. Veirs' letter was solicited by the Editor.

To the Editor:  —Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer the letter of my good friend, Everett Veirs, whose last statement I would like to answer first. I may be guilty of making a "dogmatic statement," but I am not guilty of "rearranging my prejudices." I am conducting a crusade for the "Prevention of Cruelty to Canaliculi," against procedures that needlessly impair the function of the duct.If my statement, quoted by Dr. Veirs, that "the ampulla is a nearly indispensable part of the lacrimal pump" is true, then his statement that he gets uniformly good results with this operation cannot be true.To solve this problem, I would suggest that Dr. Veirs start a series of, let's say, 50 consecutive "3-snip" operations, done under the following conditions:

  1. That the preoperative dye test be negative

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