This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Regretful surprise is occasioned whenever a respected contemporary lends its support to the minority protest against the revolution in pathology, diagnosis and therapy which laboratory science has effected in medicine during the last three decades and which, as every liberalminded, physician knows, is still on the very threshold of its achievements.
Innovation has always had its obstructionists, reform its opponents. A few years ago a surgeon of prominence, for motives best known to himself, publicly decried the value of laboratory methods as applied to surgical diagnosis. He found a sympathetic audience in those who, for lack of knowledge or from inertia, had been unable personally to acquire the skill and knowledge necessary to apply these methods in their daily work. He attained a notoriety of advertising proportions. Privately, however, this surgeon was forced to admit that he availed himself of many of the laboratory's results in deciding the nature of
THE SO-CALLED MAGIC TOUCH AS OPPOSED TO LABORATORY PRECISION IN DIAGNOSIS. JAMA. 1906;XLVI(6):436–437. doi:10.1001/jama.1906.02510330042008
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: