[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 5, 1927


JAMA. 1927;88(10):726. doi:10.1001/jama.1927.02680360038016

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


Not only physicians but also sociologists, psychologists and economists have on frequent occasions in recent years devoted pages of anathema to the curse of philanthropy. Ever since it was realized that pauperization resulted from much of the practice of free medical clinics, committees of physicians and investigators have issued pronouncements against uncontrolled application of charitable funds to medical care. The great problem of the past quarter of a century has been to use for the public good the benefits to be derived from medical science. The possibilities for good logically have made medical research and medical education the beneficiaries of more philanthropy than has been accorded to art institutes, sculpture and general cultural and municipal improvements. They have also given rise to the new professions of social worker, public welfare counselor and the executive secretary, whose sinecure recently attracted the vitriol of Mr. Mencken's pen.

Prof. Hans Zinsser of the

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