Lest we forget

Editor:THURSTON

SCOTT WELTON, M.D.,F.A.c.s., NEW YORR

ofRadiology:

Editor, Department

JAMES T. CASE, M.D.,P.A.c.s., CHICAGO

EDITORIAL WALTER C. ALVAREZ,

Rochester,

COFFEY, Portland. Ore.; ISIDORE COHN, N.O.; ELSBERG, N.Y.:

C. R. G. FORRESTER,

C. GORDON HEYD, JACKSON,

N. Y.;

Madison;

SOUTHGATE

Sea&;

Newark,

N.J.;

Ralagh;

A. C. SCOTT, San

CARL

HOWARD

A. KELLY,

~empk,

N. 0.;

Phila.;

H. C. NAFFZIGER,

LOUIS E. PHANEUF,

San Fmncirco;

Scranton; GRANT

E. WARD,

BRITAIN-J.

JOHNSTON

GUTHRIE,

N. Y.:

KRIDA,

URBAN MAES, N. 0.; OCHSNER,

Boston; E. H. POOL, N. Y.; DOUGLAS Balr.;

Save,

N. Y.;

F. C. WARNSHUIS,

N. Y.;

Rapids;

A.

San Francisco; REGINALD H. A. V. S. LAMBERT, N. Y.;

ROY D. MCCLURE, Derrp,t; J. TATE N. 0.;

CLARENCE R. O’CROWLBY,

QUICK, N. Y.;

JOHN E. SUMMERS,

Grand

ROBERT C. CHARLES

Pa.; A. E. HERTZLER, KansasCity:

EMILE F. HOLMAN,

E. M. ALTON

Tex.: M. G. SEELIG, St. Louis; J. BENTLEY SQUIER:

ALEXIS CARREL, N.Y.;

Chicago:

Bnlrimore; ARTHUR

H. H. M. LYLE, N. Y.; JEROME M. LYNCH, N. Y.: MATAS,

BECK,

CRILE, Clev.: ROBERT V. DAY, Los Angeles;

DONALD

Phila.:

Denoir: JAMES M. HITZROT,

HUBERT

A. ROYSTER,

Omaha: GEORGE W. SWIFT,

ALLEN 0. WHIPPLE

,N. Y.; J. HOMER

Francisco.

C&boruIors-GREAT

HUGHES, Bradford; GEOFFREY JEFFERSON, Manchester; C. MAX PAGE, London; FRANCE -G.

Minn.:

GEORGE w.

JOHN H. GIBBON,

Chicago;

LOUIS J. HIRSCHMAN,

F. R. PACKARD,

J. M. WAINWRIGHT,

WOOLSEY, Foreign

RUDOLPH

W. B. COLEY, N. Y.;

L. KELLER, Washington;

LEIGH, Norfolk;

MASON,

Sea&:

WM.

BOARD

DONALD C. BALFOUR, Rochester,

Minn.;

S. S. PRINGLE, Dublin:

JEANNENEY,

Bordeaux.

ABRAHAM,

J. J. M. SHAW,

ITALY-RAFFAELB

London; E. F. FINCH, Sh&ield:

ANDREW FULLERTON, Be&t:

BASIL

SIR ROBERT JONES, Liverpool: R. E. KELLY, Liverpool; G. P. MILLS, Birmingham; Edinburgh;

BASTIANELLI,

H. S. SOUTTAR,

London;

J. H. WATSON,

Bumles.

~~~~~

The American Journal of Surgery is truly independent and enters into no “entangling alliances.” It publishes many papers read before the leading surgical societies of the Country, but it is not “the o5cial organ” of any organization. Every manuscript is selected b the editors, BSworthy of publication-nothing is published merely because “it was read at L e meeting.”

p=Tril LEST WE FORGET

F

OR the past two decades two :men have been prominent in American obstetrics. They were the generaIs Ieading the forces of conservatism in midwifery. In their writings, daiIy contact with students and practice, both J-ohn Osborn PoIak and J. Whitridge WiIIiams were the generaIs of the forces of sanity in this branch of medicine. WhiIe in this country the published mortaIity records are nothing to point to with pride, these gentIemen, in their efforts to make chiIdbearing Iess dangerous, continued to preach and drive home the fundamenta1 Iessons of giving nature a chance, eschewing the bizarre and radical. They beIieved that more hours shoukl be

devoted to the teaching of obstetrics in the undergraduate schooIs. They affirmed that students shouId have an opportunity for a wide acquaintance with the cIinica1 side of obstetrics in the deIivery-room and prenata1 cIinic. They were insistent that a11 teaching shouId emphasize time-tried, conservative measures. When obstetricians of more or Iess reputation advocated short cuts to deIivery, for the most part entaiIing meddIesome midwifery, PoIak and WiIIiams cIaimed the methods were to be condemned because it gave the neophyte a set of faIse vaIues which would result in human havoc Iater in their professiona careers. It has been common knowIedge that there are some in this country who have

690

American

Journal

of Surgery

EditoriaI

sought pubhcity by suggesting a11 sorts of fantastic procedures, procedures aimed to shorten labor and effect rapid birth. But these men have never come into the open and dared the fight. Whenever they Iifted their heads above the scientific hedge PoIak and WiIIiams were not sIow to hit and in scathing terms condemn and so prevent the questionabIe ideas from gaining a foothoId and becoming popuIar with the common run of practitioners, who get their ideas from the higher-ups.

We sit back and wonder if these men of radica1 tendencies wiI1 now braveIy run into the open and deIuge the profession with a thousand and one new ways of terminating norma labor. It wouId not surprise some if in their zest to get the spotIight wiI1 go to the great Iength of advocating cesarean section in a11 cases. Those who beIieve in conservative obstetrics must take up the cudgels so abIy handIed by PoIak and WiIIiams and continue the fight for sane methods. T. S. W.