Abstract
In spite of the boasted brilliancy of recent microscopic technic, the friends of diagnostic curettage have not been able to lift this procedure to the plane of scientific acceptation, and even in cases of suspected malignant uterine disease, digital exploration has approval as the best of pertinent diagnostic measures. Curettement as a means of diagnosis can count a few sporadic friends. Its foes are legionary. They may be classified for contemplation into two groups: The first is made up of those gynecologic routiniers, who, in deference to an over-refined sense of delicacy, or from sheer indifference to the less salient details of diagnosis, prefer not to explore the malodorous and unsightly matter vented from the diseased uterus or vagina, and who likewise turn unmindfully from the examination of feces, pus and sputum. The most prized of scientific riches have been gleaned in exploration of the unpicturesque excreta. The modern medicine
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
