History of Ophthalmology: Sub auspiciis Academiae Ophthalmologicae Internationalis PDF
Preview History of Ophthalmology: Sub auspiciis Academiae Ophthalmologicae Internationalis
History of Ophthalmology 7 Sub auspiciis Academiae Ophthalmologicae Intemationalis Editor DANIEL M. ALBERT Madison, Wisconsin, USA Associate Editor CLAUDIA ZRENNER Tubingen, Germany .... " Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. ISBN 978-0-7923-3401-9 ISBN 978-94-011-0127-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-0127-1 ISBN 978-0-7923-3401-9 AlI Rights Reserved © 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1995 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any informa tion storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. (on acid-free paper) HISTORY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 7 ACADEMIA OPHTHALMOLOGICA INTERNATIONALIS Board President: GIUSEPPE SCUDERI Vice-Presidents: BENJAMIN BOYD and RONALD LOWE Secretary-General: PIERRE AMALRIC Treasurer: JEAN-FRAN<;OIS CUENDET CONTENTS HISTORY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 7 Sub auspiciis Academiae Ophthalmologicae Internationalis Albert, D.M., Cogan and Verhoeff: A friendship of genius Cogan, D.G., Life events and visual symptoms of Adolf Hitler (With personal anecdotes) 9 Bartley, G.B, The blindness of John Milton 15 Newman, S.A., Neurology of the Ocular Muscles: emerge of a neuro-ophthalmologist A personal history and tribute to David Cogan 29 Zimmerman, L.E., William Thomson and Joseph Janvier Wood- ward 39 Frayer W.C., William Fisher Norris: A Philadelphia ophthal- mologist 45 Kalin Johnson, C., E.J. Curran, M.D., D. Ophth. 59 Blanchard, D., Pope John XXI, ophthalmologist 75 Letocha, C.E., Did George McClellan commit malpractice? 85 Fishman, G.A., Alex E. Krill: A brief biography of his life and final days 93 Spencer (Ed.), W.H., Toichiro Kuwabara on Dave Cogan An interview 101 Newell, F.W., The origins of the National Eye Institute 1933-1968 The Fifth Charles B. Snyder Lecture 127 Sassani, J.W., A history of low vision and blind rehabilitation in the United States 145 Reifler, D.M., The tarsectomy operation of A.P.L. Gillet de Grandmont and its periodic rediscovery (1837-1894) 153 Alper, M.G., Pioneers in the history of orbital decompression for Graves' ophthalmopathy R.U. Kroenlein (1847-1910), O. Hirsch (1877-1965) and H.C. Naffziger (1884-1961) 163 Fishman, R.S., Brian wars: Passion and conflict in the localiza- tion of vision in the brain 173 Blanchard, D.L., Jaeger, About Glaucoma 185 Rosenthal, J.Wm., Optical uses of fans 193 Documenta Ophthalmologica 89: 1-7, 1995. © 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Cogan and Verhoeff: A friendship of genius * DANIEL M. ALBERT Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University ofW isconsin Medical School, Madison WI, USA Key words: David Cogan, Frederick Verhoeff, History of Medicine (Ophthalmology) Remembrance of Dave Cogan Dave Cogan was the founder of the American Ophthalmic History Society. A few years ago, we attempted to change the name of our society to the Cogan Society, but Dave out of modesty resisted this change. His presence is very much missed at this meeting. Introduction Following Dave's death in September of 1993, I reread many of his pub lications. One of the most fascinating papers Dave wrote was his unique obituary of Frederick Verhoeff, delivered as the Third Frederick H. Verhoeff Lecture to the American Ophthalmological Society in 1969. On rereading this remarkable obituary, written in the form of a letter to Dr. Verhoeff, I realized that Dave tells us as much, perhaps more, about himself than about Verhoeff. Verhoeff served as a model for him in life. In his lecture he paid tribute to Verhoeff's intellectual honesty, his courage, his originality, his scientific spir it, his loyalty, and his wit. These are the traits that made Dave Cogan himself . such a great man. Curiously, Dave left no single detailed account of his friendship with Ver hoeff. I have gone through Dave's writings and pieced together a description of this friendship in Dave's own words, and offer it as a tribute to Dave's memory. I have taken the liberty of doing some editing, changing tenses and inserting some explanatory phrases for coherence and continuity. The voice, however, is Dave Cogan's. * Presented in memory of Dr. David Cogan at the annual meeting of the American Oph thalmic History Society, Bethesda, MD 18 March 1994. 2. Verhoeff served as a model for me in every way. There is no doubt about it. It was during my residency (beginning in 1933) that I came to know Verhoeff. I never thought of going elsewhere than Harvard for my res idency, only in the event I would not be accepted for MEEI. I believe there were 8 'residents', Tom Carroll, Rod Irvine, Harold Gifford, Harry Messenger are the names I can remember. ... Neither the medical school nor the hospital felt it was its responsibility to teach the basic sciences in the specialties. Instead, we organized among ourselves Sunday morning sessions for the study of ophthalmic pathology. Self-instruction can be the best type of learning. Residents now are so overloaded with clinical work in the hospital and responsibilities in their home life that they do not have time for such enterprises. Dr. George Derby who had been Chief of Ophthalmology died in 1931, whereas I did not come to the Infirmary unti11933. I think Verhoeff would have been pleased to have been offered the position of Chief of Ophthalmology at the Infirmary or Chairman of the Depart ment at Harvard. (That is) because there was a strong rivalry between him and Dr. Derby. But I think he would have had the good sense to turn it down. He was an investigator of ideas, not an administrator of people. This is an important difference. Dr Waite succeeded (Dr. Derby) as Chair man of the Department. Dr. Waite and Dr. Paul Chandler had been his two associates in private practice. Dr. Paul Chandler was the Infirmary's premier surgeon and authority on glaucoma. How did Verhoeff get on with the more clinical types? I heard a good deal about the mixture of awe and fear with which he was held by some of the clinicians including my mother. Dr. Verhoeff was made Director of the Howe Laboratory in 1932, one year before I started my residency. Would you care to have me give you a brief synopsis of the Howe Lab? Let me say something about Dr. and Mrs. Lucien Howe. I never knew Dr. Howe personally. All I know is from hearsay and from what Mrs. Howe and their nieces have told me. Dr. Howe was a prominent Buffalo ophthalmologist. He was financially well supplied. Mrs. Howe was his cousin. They had no children. I don't know what prompted him to establish the laboratory at Harvard. I don't believe he had any previous connection with Harvard or the Infirmary. 3 In 1927 Dr. Howe gave Harvard Medical School a sum of $250,000 to be matched by an equal sum from University funds, to establish the laboratory. Dr. Howe was appointed the first Director and was provided with a room in the physiology department in the Medical School. ... Within a few months, however, Dr. Howe died, leaving an additional $250,000 to the Laboratory .... The room at the school was locked up, and the laboratory became essentially a paper organization for several years under the supervision of a committee that included the Dean, I believe, Dr. [David] Edsall, Dr. Walter B. Cannon, Dr. Hans Zinzer, Dr. George Derby, and Dr. Frederick Verhoeff. An attempt was made to recruit Sir Stewart Duke-Elder and he came from England to give a series of lectures, but declined the position. Then in 1932, Dr. Derby prevailed on the committee to transfer the Laboratory to the Infirmary under a loose agreement whereby the Infirmary would provide space and Dr. Verhoeff would be the Director. (He was appointed in 1932). What Dr. Verhoeff did have to say about the Howes was nothing more than what you might predict. He felt Dr. Howe's reputation as an investigator was over-rated. As for Mrs. Howe, he didn't want her to interfere with his operation of the laboratory. I credit Verhoeff with a role in the evolution of ophthalmology from an empiric clinical specialty to an academic discipline resting on scientific foundations. He was the founder of ophthalmic pathology in this country. That's a paradox because it never was his primary interest. He took the job at MEEI because it provided a source of income shortly after his graduation from Hopkins. The suggestion came from 'Popsy' Welch, the Professor of Pathology and Dean at Hopkins. When Verhoeff protested he didn't know pathology, the professor replied, 'You can learn it as you do it'. So Verhoeff came to the MEEI to do autopsies, mostly resulting from fatal mastoid infections. Within a few years, however, he switched to eye pathology exclusively. Dr. Verhoeff, whose researches had been chiefly in pathology welcomed the opportunity to indulge in a long-time interest in physiology of visual perception. The laboratory became the research arm of the Infirmary with a small staff and a budget of $30,000. So it was during my residency that I came to know Dr. Verhoeff when he was in his second year of running the Howe Laboratory. I found Dr. Verhoeff tremendously stimulating and provocative at the same time. 4 At luncheon sessions, the residents had their own table with Verhoeff at its head. It was a time for the residents and Verhoeff. He raised ques tions about stereopsis, clinical cases, or whatever was on his mind at the moment. He usually came in a little late. It was one of our misdeeds to have a new resident occupy this head position unwittingly. We would watch for the expected reaction when Dr. Verhoeff appeared. (Verhoeff) did not have time for such social amenities as saying hello or apparent recognition of his colleagues. He seemed to be thinking of something more important. He was so intensely interested in what he was doing that he would rather talk about his interests than yours. I remember I left the clinic one day to consult with him about a patient. I was then anxious to get back to the clinic but he was anxious to tell me about one of his ideas. Noting my restlessness, he said, 'I know you don't understand a damn think I'm talking about, but it helps me to tell you about it anyway'. I think (Verhoeff) indirectly recognized my interests and tried to forward them. If he thought any of us had a good idea, he would challenge us, but if you survived the inquisition, he would be one hundred percent on your side. If you did not, well, you'd better give up the idea. He was always more lenient to young persons such as residents than to his authoritarian peers. If he suspected subterfuge, unsubstantiated speculation, or naivete, he could be devastating. He was especially vituperative when it came to the Dartmouth Eye Institute. We loved him for his frankness. Some of us were indoctrinated by his insistence on originality and direct observation in research. He once told me he didn't care so much what peo ple thought as he did why they thought as they did. I think he was saying he was interested in observations rather than speculation. In pathology he was more interested in analyzing a microscope slide than in reading about the subject in a book. Could book knowledge be a handicap? I think he might have replied, it can be a handicap to originality. His penchant for originality came out in other ways. He never wrote a textbook despite the pressures on him to do so. Queried for a reason, he once told me, textbook writers had to concern themselves with the established opinions of others rather than with new explanations of their own. His interests lay with the later. ... He chose the unbeaten path, going out of his way to avoid the usual flow of traffic.
The list of books you might like
