There are various criteria of success in the practice of medicine. Some of them are appraised in terms of human psychology, a circumstance that renders them none the less real and legitimate in certain cases. Others are expressed in the restoration of health to those who have consulted the physician; and in such instances the real contribution of the latter is not so easy to evaluate, because of the fact that recovery from injuries of varied sorts is an inherent property of living tissues, and often proceeds without human intervention, or sometimes even despite it. Again, there are pathologic conditions that the clinician may remedy frequently, provided he can recognize them with accuracy. Success in the treatment of such ailments depends first on precision in diagnosis and then on skill in professional ministrations. A few years ago, a lively discussion was awakened not only in professional but also in lay circles when it was announced that a large number of diagnoses in hospitals were demonstrated through observations at operations or by necropsy findings to be in error. This seemed at first thought to be a serious incrimination of the efficacy of the medical examination of the sick, and it undoubtedly led to considerable frank criticism as well as some wholesome introspection.
