[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 26, 1901


JAMA. 1901;XXXVII(17):1118. doi:10.1001/jama.1901.02470430042002

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


When called to a case, the young physician is apt to meditate more on what he shall prescribe rather than on what is the matter. As a student he was, perhaps, more diligently occupied in copying the pet prescriptions of his favorite teachers than in noting the care with which these same teachers sought to impress upon his mind the importance of diagnosis and the fact that a correct knowledge of the disease process, its cause and its natural course, must precede a rational therapy.

What the average practitioner thinks he wants, when, after a decade of practice, he attends a post-graduate school, is a knowledge of the new drugs and the latest method of treatment. He is satisfied with his ability to recognize typhoid fever, but has become discouraged because his last three cases died in spite of the treatment that had been so uniformly successful in scores of

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