 |
|
SYPHILISA Review of the Recent Literature
HERMAN BEERMAN, M.D.;
WILLIAM T. FORD, M.D.;
LESLIE NICHOLAS, M.D.;
LAWRENCE KATZENSTEIN, M.D.
AMA Arch Intern Med. 1952;89(2):309-352.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
IF THE theme of this sixteenth annual review of syphilis, covering the period July 1, 1950, to July 1, 1951, could be summed up by a single statement, it might read, "The syphilologist may be dying, but syphilis is not."1 The passing of the diagnosis and management of syphilis from the hands of a few, usually dermatologists, to physicians in general is more apparent now than it has been in the past. Of course, this trend has not happened overnight, since evidence of loss of interest in syphilis by dermatologists was noted early in the penicillin era.2
The return of syphilis diagnosis and treatment to the masses of physicians carries with it an obligation of which the practitioner may well be cognizant.3 His attitude cannot be that expressed by a physician in a recent cartoon in Modern Medicine: "I am going to give you penicillin for five
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA; WILMINGTON, DEL. With the Collaboration of Frank W. Reynolds, M.D., and T. Guthe, M.D., Geneva, Switzerland
From the University of Pennsylvania, Departments of Dermatology and Syphilology, School of Medicine, Donald M. Pillsbury, M. D., Professor; the Graduate School of Medicine, Herman Beerman, M.D., Chairman, and the Institute for the Study of Venereal Disease, John H. Stokes, M. D., Director.
Footnotes
Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Guthe are with the World Health Organization.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
|
