Baas says in Handerson's History of Medicine1 that "Specialism is per se an evidence of a civilization of high development: indeed, of one tending toward its downfall," and speaking of the division of medical labor in our larger cities, Handerson2 says that "the dangers of running specialism to seed are very manifest."
It might be possible to demonstrate historically that excessive specialism is the forerunner of medical decay, so that if in the present discussion I run counter to modern medical thought I may find justification for doing so in the ups and downs of medical progress throughout the ages.
There is no necessity of my calling the attention of the members of this Section to the great importance of the ophthalmoscope as an aid to diagnosis. And yet, I fear that while it is so valuable to us and we accept its findings with such confidence we
ALBERT RUFUS BAKER. SHOULD THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPHTHALMOSCOPE AND TRIAL LENSES?. JAMA. 1902;XXXIX(10):529–530. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.52480360009001a