This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Julian M. Morris
Washington, DC

Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(3):334-335.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I found it surprising that, in an otherwise excellent editorial (October 1985 ARCHIVES) expressing his concerns about the questionable practice of eyelid tattooing, Dr Richard L. Anderson¹ places "much of the blame" on federal and local governments for what he considers the irresponsible and premature promotion of this practice by manufacturers and some overzealous ophthalmologists. Why? Dr Anderson believes that "Before governmental control became so pervasive, physicians were seemingly more dedicated, scientifically oriented, and self-controlled. Now, however, many physicians spend so much time trying to work around governmental controls that when they are absent (as in the case of eyelid tattoos), it is easily forgotten that physicians should be responsible for selfcontrol and ethical behavior."

That physicians of yore were more dedicated, scientific, and self-controlled than those of today is arguable. But it is extremely difficult to accept the thesis that government regulations that were . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?