“Eye Physician” or “Eye Surgeon”: To the Editor

CORRESPONDENCE To the editor: I have read with a great deal of interest the letter written by Dr. William H. Wilder on the sub­ ject "eye physician" or "eye surgeon" in the March number of the American Journal of Ophthalmology. Dr. Wilder in his letter suggests ex­ pression of opinion from members of his profession on the subject, and while I am not a member of the profession, but a dispensing optician, I thought it might not be amiss to state my views as a member of the Guild of Prescrip­ tion Opticians of America. I was present at the convention of the Guild at Buffalo last June, and took part in the discussion which re­ sulted in the adoption of the term "eye physician." Our purpose was to make it plain that the profession referred to is the medical profession and not optometric or optical. As Guild members we are committed to cooperate with the ophthalmologist in every way, not only in filling pre­ scriptions for glasses, but in educating the public as to the need of the services of an ophthalmologist when glasses are needed. Therefore, as no refracting is done in a Guild member's establish­ ment, we have daily opportunities of referring patients to the oculist. Were we to mention "surgeon" in­ stead of "physician" it might imme­ diately suggest to the layman's mind some sort of operation, and great diffi­ culty would be experienced in getting a prospective patient to the oculist, whereas the word "eye physician" sug­ gests an eye specialist who has a medical degree. To the average layman, the expres­ sions ophthalmologist, oculist, optom­ etrist and optician are one and the same, and it is our purpose and aim to endeavor in every way to educate the public as to the difference between these various titles and what they mean and stand for. When we have occasion to refer patients to the proper source for re­ fraction, we do not wish to frighten them with the word surgeon, whereas the term "physician" would give them

405

a feeling of confidence. It is confi­ dence we desire to inspire. In my opinion, if we as dispensing opticians were to use the term "eye surgeon" as Dr. Wilder suggests, the effect upon the public would be such as to defeat our purpose, and I feel sure I am expressing the opinion of most of the members of our Guild. I trust Dr. Wilder will accept this viewpoint in the spirit intended. / . C. Reiss. Newark, New Jersey. McClure's advertizes quackery To the editor: I am enclosing corre­ spondence that has passed between the editor of McClure's and myself, which is selfexplanatory. If you see fit you may use it your correspondence columns. The question of glasses being harm­ ful to the human eye, as championed by Bates and his followers, is one that McClure's would like to have settled. They propose to settle it by publishing an article by Dr. R. A. Richardson of Kansas City, which has been put into "correct magazine shape" by Miss Jere Waid of their staff, and another written by an oculist of "first stand­ ing." These two articles to be umpired by Dr. Clayton P. Bennett of New York City. Dr. Bennett's name ap­ pears in the directory of the American Medical Association in small print, which means that he is neither a mem­ ber of his county medical association nor of any of its affiliated associations. This does not speak well for Dr. Bennett's position as an oculist of "first standing." Just why McClure's should be in­ terested in publishing a series of controversial articles, which can only serve to advertise Bates and his follow­ ers, is hard to understand. McClure's may honestly feel that this subject is of sufficient general interest to increase the popularity of their magazine. They surely cannot believe that these articles will settle anything. W h a t we are interested in is whether McClure's can find an ophthalmologist of "first standing" who will be willing