Colour-blindness and other defects of sight in some of their medico-legal aspects / by James T. Tudall.

  • Rudall, James T.
Date:
1887
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Colour-blindness and other defects of sight in some of their medico-legal aspects / by James T. Tudall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by UCL Library Services. The original may be consulted at UCL (University College London)

    11/24 (page 9)
    he is reported to have said— The character of the discussion sufficed to prove the absurdity of the contention that a special oculist was required for the detection of colour-blindness. The other assertion, that every examination concerning the acute- ness of vision should be entrusted to an oculist, was equally untenable. If any candidate was willing to see as well as he could any medical man could test his powers of vision by Jaeger's or Snellen's types. The Medical Society having thus become responsible for accepting these opinions, let us see how far they will be found right. If the examiner is not capable of measuring the colour sense—the refraction—and sharpness of sight—it stands to reason that there is no use in laying down for each of these a standard below which the candidate shall not be passed. If he cannot detect deviations from the normal or physiological state of the eye—if he cannot dis- cover disease, and determine whether it is progressive or stationary, important or unimportant—then, taking a common sense view, one would be inclined to believe, not that these matters are therefore unnecessary and irrelevant, but that the examiner (like a recruiting sergeant who could not measure his men in feet and inches) was incompetent for his work. Against this natural conclusion the members present at the meeting of the Medical Society, by implication, lodged a demurrer. If the railway Medical Inspector and those associated with him in the examination of 6,ooo railway employes HAVE carried out careful examinations on all the above-mentioned points, why do they not at once tell us so } To give such proof of the efficiency of the examination would be much better than to attempt to defend their present position ; for, no matter how completely non-professional persons may be misled, it is of no use—except as displaying the ignorance of those who make the assertion—to tell ophthalmic experts that visual acuity, near approach to emmetropia, and absence of pathological conditions, are insignificant factors. Ignorance, however, is a very imper- fect excuse for the reckless hardihood which allows persons to assume the performance of important duties for which their previous study and training have little, if at all, qualified them. At first look, one would be apt to think that the man who has studied the clinical pathological conditions of the eye, and its functions and derangements as an optical instrument, would probably be a more competent examiner than he who has done nothing of the kind. Here, again, the Medical