[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
December 15, 1917


Author Affiliations


JAMA. 1917;LXIX(24):2061-2062. doi:10.1001/jama.1917.02590510053023

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


A Reply to Dr. Bevan by Dr. Joseph C. Bloodgood 

To the Editor:  —I cannot agree with my friend and colleague, Dr. Arthur Dean Bevan, but I am rather inclined to the view that his open letter to Dr. Welch (The Journal, Nov. 17, 1917, p. 1727) will do good. A fair controversy leads to the crystallization of the opposing opinions, and often hastens the proper solution of the problem.I cannot agree with Dr. Bevan that Carrel's method is against the views of surgical pathology and wound repair. I confess, I am somewhat confused myself as to what the real surgical pathology of wound repair is.Bevan speaks of surgical pathology resting on the work of such men as Lister, Paget, Billroth, Fenger and Senn. Senn's chief work was in the surgical pathology of tumors, and his experimental work chiefly in intestinal suture, fracture of the neck of the

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