Concerning the conduct of medical journals and controversies / by George M. Gould.

  • Gould, George Milbrey, 1848-1922.
Date:
1905
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Concerning the conduct of medical journals and controversies / by George M. Gould. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    5/8 (page 3)
    COUKKSPONDKNCK. of Dr. Fridenberg and the review of Dr. Melville Black had also been blue-penciled by me to the point where I thought the personalities has been sufficiently eliminated. I am, there- fore, returning you your letter with the suggested corrections, and hope you will return same to me at once, so that I can put in the April issue, copy for which is mostly in press. I beg to inform you that Ophthalmology proposes to submit both sides of any question, without fear or favor, the same as you do with American Medicine. . .Ophthalmology will always be pleased to receive contribu- tions from you, and we hope for more, especially on disputed points. We would also be pleased to consider any criticisms you might‘have to offer in regard to our journal. With kind regards. Very truly yours, H. V. Wiirdemann. ' ” DR. Gould's second letter. Dr. H. V. Wiirdemann, 105 Grand Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. My dear Dr. Wiirdemann: Your letter of January 30th is received, and I must express my astonishment. In my article criticised by Dr. Fridenberg there was not a word that could be suggestive of personality. He uses the long string of rude personal epithets in his criticisms which I have merely quoted, “assurance,” “ pseudo-science,” etc,; I merely repeated these words in order to call attention to the kind of writing with which I am met. I had not been remotely “personal;” in repeating the words in quotation marks you consider me personal! Frankly, I do not understand nor agree. You did not “blue pencil” these words of his article: you do delete them in my reply when simply quoted literally. Why? The result is that you allow Dr. Fridenberg to attack me personally and will not allow me merely to quote his words without application to any-one, but solely as instances of personalities. If I should call Dr. Fridenberg’s article and author by the terms he uses in speaking of mine and me would you allow it? And yet I am in the wrong, and Dr. Fridenberg is allowed his epithets without opportunity of mv referring to them simply because (according to your letter) he used worse terms which were eliminated! I trust, in the interests of “both sides” which you uphold, you will print