[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 30, 1895


JAMA. 1895;XXIV(13):471-474. doi:10.1001/jama.1895.02430130009003a

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


This is a subject upon which there is a decided difference of opinion among eminent specialists who pursue distinct methods of treatment. I believe this to be mainly due to the fact that in the two general classes of treatment for congenital cleft palate, that which relies upon artificial means for its success is performed by the dental profession, while the other, or surgical operation, is confined almost entirely to the medical profession. And as in other instances, when these two professions are called upon to treat the same character of disease or deformity, there has never been in either profession an intimate knowledge of the method of treatment peculiar to the other, or an appreciation of its inestimable advantages in certain conditions. Were the relations of the two professions of a more intimate nature, these things might become so adjusted ethically as to render interference at times by one

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