This Article  • Full text PDF  • 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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

D. G. C.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;71(5):610.

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

A letter published elsewhere in this issue of the ARCHIVES spotlights the perennial issue of unnecessary surgery. It suggests that some among us shortchange our ideals in deciding who should and who should not have surgery.

This is the question which so moved the AMA's Joint Commission on Accreditation a few years ago that Tissue Committees were made mandatory in accredited hospitals for the specific function of examining all tissue removed at surgery. In this way, it was hoped the finger of suspicion would point to surgeons who removed inordinate numbers of normal appendices, uteri, tonsils, or other appendages. The Tissue Committee thus became in effect an ethics committee and the pathologist became unwittingly his brother surgeons' keeper. Despite this touchy arrangement the influence of tissue committees in general hospitals has been, we are told, favorable.

But such a control over general surgery has little bearing on ophthalmic surgery. The . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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