Page 430 - My FlipBook
P. 430
390 HlSTOltY OF DENTAL SUBGEEY
that while the dental profession might be divided on that point, that the
medical profession was a unit in agreeing to this proposition.
The "Medical Times" further quoted Dr. Garretson as saying that he was
"most decidedly in favor of the abolishment of the degree of D. D. S. One
degree in medicine is enough; the greater covers the lesser, and includes it.
A doctor in medicine possesses a title quite extensive enough in its signification
to embrace any specialty that he may elect to jiractice; besides it affords the
only possible bond of brotherhood with the members of the profession at large.
We may be specialists, but \vc can never be esteemed as doctors, in the desirable
fullness of the term, unlil we replace the D. D. S. with the M. D."'
The article in the "Medical Times" continues : "Those gentlemen who look
upun dentistry as 'u^longing to medicine should weigh well the words of Dr.
Garretson. On behalf of the medical profession, we freely admit that many,
it may be all, of the dentists who took part in the debate, far exceed, in point
of general, literary, scientific, and even in special medical culture, many of our
ph\-sicians. But that does not aft'ect the question. The medical profession
is perfectly willing to admit dentists to its fraternit}' as soon as they become
doctors of medicine, but never whilst they are merely doctors of dentistry.
Keally, the physicians are, in great part, indifferent in this matter; but just
as soon as the universal law of the medical profession—that tbe specialist
shall first be a general practitioner, and shall have no special degree—is
complied with, the medical profession will at once assimilate this great new
body."
A letter written in April, ISSl, by Dr. James E. Garretson to Drs. Truman
W. Brophy and E. S. Talbot, of Chicago, clearly depicts the views enter-
tained by this distinguished surgeon regarding this subject. It is further
aniplyfied in a letter written by this author on March 11, 1882. These
letters are reproduced as an interesting contribution to the history of the con-
tention that then agitated the medical as well as the dental profession.
PliiUulelplua, April —, ISSl.
Drs. Brophy au
it has e.xtended from day to day out of sheer inability to find time for writing.
All that you purpose can be carried through, but the term dentistry must be dropped
and that of Oral Surgery, which includes it, be used.
The old-fashioned dentist is too closely related with the idea of the term to allow
of its favorable reception by the Jledical Society; my own feeling would lie in the
same direction. Oral Surgery is dentistry, but dentistry is far from being Oral Sur-
gery. If T understand the work being done by the gentlemen I addi'ess, I write to
