This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
In the May, 1964, issue of the Archives the letter of Dr. Ralph W. Danielson with your editorial comment should not be passed up as a flash in the pan with a fleeting sputter, unread or given little attention by most ophthalmologists. This fire should be kept alive. It is no credit to our Ophthalmological Societies that the AMA has to use the whiplash in efforts to keep some of our practices in line. But the AMA cannot do our "soul searching," nor will soul-searching advice offered at infrequent intervals do enough good. Apathy on the part of a large honest majority encourages the discordant minority to greater activity and expansion. "Scientific" reports are presented to justify "influenced" judgment.It is, indeed, a high tribute to the staffs of our training hospitals that the ideals of recent residents are usually uppermost. The responsibility is squarely up to
Newton FH. ETHICS AND APATHY. Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;72(2):293. doi:10.1001/archopht.1964.00970020293030