This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

SPRAGUE CARLETON, M.D.

AMA Arch Derm. 1955;72(4):303-306.

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

Believing that there are values in looking back on the past, I feel that I should record and comment on some of what I recollect of the disease of syphilis. Only a few will see it today. I can go back more than fifty years to when my father before me was in charge of syphilitics of New York City's Metropolitan Hospital. It was a big service. Syphilis then was in more than one sense a very common disease. Most of the then dignified medical profession were outspoken in not wanting to have anything to do with it. This did not help the afflicted or protect the surgeons whose work brought them in contact with their syphilitic blood. This was the heyday of quacks in the venereal disease field. Syphilis was considered a disease of loose low living; there was then no specific micro-organism on which to place . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
New York

Footnotes
Submitted for publication June 16, 1955.

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