You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 117 No. 9, September 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  From the Archives of the Archives
 This Article
 •Full text
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

A look at the past . . .

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1249.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 109 words of the full text and any section headings.

The roots of the trouble go back very far. When aniseikonia was first presented to ophthalmologists, serious objections were raised by the leaders of the medial profession. These were never properly answered. Instead, exaggerated claims for aniseikonia were made which could not be substantiated. The cool reception by the members of the profession led, in turn, to an exaggerated sensitivity toward criticism, and an approach to less critical laymen was made in person or through the press which would not be approved by the members of the medial profession, either within or outside the Institute.

Reference: Burian HM. The history of the Dartmouth Eye Institute. Arch Ophthalmol. 1948;40:168.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.