[Skip to Navigation]
October 1963


Author Affiliations

1777 Grand Concourse Bronx 53, NY

Arch Ophthalmol. 1963;70(4):587-588. doi:10.1001/archopht.1963.00960050589031

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


To the Editor.  —Splitting of responsibility for the patient's physiologic and pathologic functions among a growing list of specialized medical attendants produces serious problems of communication between the latter. This deplorable situation, and I use the words advisedly, is exemplified once again in the current employment of diamox by nonophthalmologists.The ophthalmologist in routine testing for intraocular pressure cannot properly inform his patient that no evidence of glaucoma exists until he has assured himself that the patient is not on acetazolamide (Diamox) therapy prescribed by someone else for its diuretic action. A similar situation occurs in the course of glaucoma surveys, now popular throughout the country. Here again a negative history of acetazolamide therapy should be obtained by a physician before the patient is given a clean bill of health.A corollary situation is that obtaining when an ophthalmologist examines his glaucoma patients in routine follow-up. A normal tension pleasing

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution