- Email: [email protected]
Shall We Use Cycloplegics?
BOOK NOTICES
taken is correct; it is merely to call attention to the existence of this group with representatives in many cities and to suggest that if you do believe in what they are trying to establish you ought to support them. Realize that by their action these opticians have put their future in the hands of the medical profession and that they cannot make a success of this effort without the help of the ophthal mologist. The initiative has been assumed by these opticians. They have thus undertaken the expense and trouble of convincing the public of the wisdom of a medical examination of the eyes; a task which properly be longed to physicians but in which physicians have for the most part failed. Since the offensive has been assumed by these men, let those who believe with them give them support in their effort. A suggestion by the Guild that the ophthalmologist should use the designa tion "eye physician" to avoid confusion in the lay mind as between "oculist," "optometrist," and "optician" was dealt with in a former editorial in this Journal (vol. 10, no. 9, p. 705), but the idea seems so valuable that attention is again called to it. L. T. P. SHALL WE USE CYCLOPLEGICS? The paper by Dr. Wells, read before the Section on Ophthalmology of the American Medical Association, is pub lished in this journal because it has not been afforded the wider circulation commonly given to Section papers by publication in the Journal of the Ameri can Medical Association. While the author's contentions as to principle are unquestionably in agree ment with the views and practice of most ophthalmologists, yet, since the basis of the paper is a discussion of the subject which occurred at the London Conference in 1925, it seems proper to call attention to certain details in re gard to which Dr. Wells may have mis apprehended the trend of that dis cussion. Dr. Wells says that Herbert, Brailey, and Traquair agreed with BurdonCooper as to omitting cycloplegia. In the discussion as recorded in the Tran sactions of the Ophthalmological So
151
ciety of the United Kingdom, Herbert is not shown as saying anything about atropin or homatropin; Brailey is re ported as agreeing that atropin is seldom necessary, but says nothing about homatropin; and Traquair is not reported as agreeing in omitting cycloplegia, but as agreeing in the on slaught on the indiscriminate use of atropin. The present writer, although quoted by Dr. Wells as agreeing with Burdon-Cooper that cycloplegia could be omitted entirely, actually said (ac cording to the Transactions) that he had not frequently obtained a higher error without atropin than with, but did quite frequently obtain just as large a hyperopic error without as with atropin, if the test was completed by bilateral fogging. W. H. C. Errata On page 743, vol. 10, the legend at the bottom of the page, -under figure 7, should read "Small necrotic area in the spleen in microscopic section". In Dr. H. Gifford's contribution in the issue for December, 1927, the third and fourth lines of the second column of page 923 should read: "one-sided irritability of the'gland"; and in the ninth line from the end of the same article the word "ones" should be "one". BOOK NOTICES Bericht der Versammlung der deutschen ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg, 1927. Edited by A. Wagenmann. Paper, octavo 522 pages, 144 illustrations, ten in colors. Munich: J. F. Bergmann, 1927. The reports of the Heidelberg Con gress give a better resume of what has recently claimed the attention of Ger man ophthalmologists than do any other one publication. The German investigator who has written an elabor ate account of his studies occupying one hundred pages or more in a monograph, or in the Archiv, comes to the Congress, presents the practical aspect of his ob servations, or a summary of them, in five or ten pages, and has them dis cussed by colleagues who confirm or criticize his conclusions. Or the clinical worker brings to this gathering, of the
taken is correct; it is merely to call attention to the existence of this group with representatives in many cities and to suggest that if you do believe in what they are trying to establish you ought to support them. Realize that by their action these opticians have put their future in the hands of the medical profession and that they cannot make a success of this effort without the help of the ophthal mologist. The initiative has been assumed by these opticians. They have thus undertaken the expense and trouble of convincing the public of the wisdom of a medical examination of the eyes; a task which properly be longed to physicians but in which physicians have for the most part failed. Since the offensive has been assumed by these men, let those who believe with them give them support in their effort. A suggestion by the Guild that the ophthalmologist should use the designa tion "eye physician" to avoid confusion in the lay mind as between "oculist," "optometrist," and "optician" was dealt with in a former editorial in this Journal (vol. 10, no. 9, p. 705), but the idea seems so valuable that attention is again called to it. L. T. P. SHALL WE USE CYCLOPLEGICS? The paper by Dr. Wells, read before the Section on Ophthalmology of the American Medical Association, is pub lished in this journal because it has not been afforded the wider circulation commonly given to Section papers by publication in the Journal of the Ameri can Medical Association. While the author's contentions as to principle are unquestionably in agree ment with the views and practice of most ophthalmologists, yet, since the basis of the paper is a discussion of the subject which occurred at the London Conference in 1925, it seems proper to call attention to certain details in re gard to which Dr. Wells may have mis apprehended the trend of that dis cussion. Dr. Wells says that Herbert, Brailey, and Traquair agreed with BurdonCooper as to omitting cycloplegia. In the discussion as recorded in the Tran sactions of the Ophthalmological So
151
ciety of the United Kingdom, Herbert is not shown as saying anything about atropin or homatropin; Brailey is re ported as agreeing that atropin is seldom necessary, but says nothing about homatropin; and Traquair is not reported as agreeing in omitting cycloplegia, but as agreeing in the on slaught on the indiscriminate use of atropin. The present writer, although quoted by Dr. Wells as agreeing with Burdon-Cooper that cycloplegia could be omitted entirely, actually said (ac cording to the Transactions) that he had not frequently obtained a higher error without atropin than with, but did quite frequently obtain just as large a hyperopic error without as with atropin, if the test was completed by bilateral fogging. W. H. C. Errata On page 743, vol. 10, the legend at the bottom of the page, -under figure 7, should read "Small necrotic area in the spleen in microscopic section". In Dr. H. Gifford's contribution in the issue for December, 1927, the third and fourth lines of the second column of page 923 should read: "one-sided irritability of the'gland"; and in the ninth line from the end of the same article the word "ones" should be "one". BOOK NOTICES Bericht der Versammlung der deutschen ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg, 1927. Edited by A. Wagenmann. Paper, octavo 522 pages, 144 illustrations, ten in colors. Munich: J. F. Bergmann, 1927. The reports of the Heidelberg Con gress give a better resume of what has recently claimed the attention of Ger man ophthalmologists than do any other one publication. The German investigator who has written an elabor ate account of his studies occupying one hundred pages or more in a monograph, or in the Archiv, comes to the Congress, presents the practical aspect of his ob servations, or a summary of them, in five or ten pages, and has them dis cussed by colleagues who confirm or criticize his conclusions. Or the clinical worker brings to this gathering, of the