Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1921-11-15
ARGUMENTS FOR RICH
MOND LOCATION AN
SEVERED BYADVoCATES
OF UNIVERSITY
(Second Scries)

vocates OF the University location Tor
the single state-supported medicai
school have singled out the principal
arguments for the Richmond location
and have attempted 10 briefly refute
them. Twelve OF the leading asser'
tons OF the Richmond supporters nave
been answered in this way and this Is
the second of series OF articles zeal.
ing with these arguments.
Assertion 7.
Richmond advocates alleee that
the state needs more doctors than
are now being graduated from tho
two schools.
Answer.
The Richmond advocates acknowl.
edge that If the presnt state appro-
priation for medical education is taken
from Richmond and given TO the Uni.
versity MORE students can be grad
uated from the University than is the
case at present they also insist that
ii the state decided TO center upon the
University school the proprietary Rich.
mond school will not acQuiesce, but
will break away. independently and
continue with huge funds already in
sight from charitable or religious
bodies. They acknowledge that the
state-owned school at the University
plus the endowed school al Richmond,
will under these conditions, graduate
more young doctors than would
single school at either Charlottesville
or Richmond
Assertion 8.
The Richmond advocates allege
chat the relations between medical
teaching, pharmacal teaching and
dental teaching are so extremely
intimate that the medical depart
nent of Richmond cannot be sep
arated from the dental and phar-
macal departments of Richmond.
Answer.
The Richmond advocates acknowl
edge that Pharmacy and Dentistry are
practically self-supporting in Rich.
mond. moreover the ties between
Pharmaca and Dental teaching in
Richmond are never closer, and sell
dem as close as the ties, at the Uni
yersity, between medical teaching col.
legiate teaching. and the sciences
taught at the University. Moreover,
the Medical students at the University
acquire very valuable asset from the
atmosphere of a great University
which cannot be paralleled in Rich.
mond
Assertion 9.
The Richmond advocates Insist
that dentistry and pharmacy must
be taught in Richmond and that
It will be impossible to teach them
at the University.
Answer.
II 1t is true (as believed for cen.
turies) that il is an advantage TO a
state to have a high percentage OF
citizens equipped through University
teaching, it follows that the state will
be better off If its pharmacists and
dentists are trained at the state Uni
versity This is the position taken by
the University authorities. The best
advice that they have obtained con
vinces them that both dentistry and
pharmacy can be we'll taught at the
University; that pharmacy will be
greatly benefited by the intimate con.
tact with the University departments
Of chemistry, botany. biology, ETC., that
there will be abundant clinics for den.
tistry. Moreover, they find that the
dental graduates who show up best
before the examining boards are not
the graduates Of proprietary schools
Ike Richmond, but the graduates OF
state University schools.
Assertion 10.
Richmond advocates have COM
pletely failed to PROVE that it ia
NECESSARY to separate the med
ical school from the University,
they have failed to PROVE that it
will be ECONOMICAL, they have
failed to PROVE that it will i'm
prove medical education, or the
general welfare of the state.
Answer
The University authorities insist
that until such proof has been estab
lished it will be tragic mistake TO
destroy a great state asset like the
medical school at the University with
its state, national and international
reputation; strong. vigorous and grow.
ing)-for dubious and vaguely pic.
tured advantage (Which has In 50
years failed TO materialize in Rich.
mond).
Assertion II.
The members Of the Commits
sion signing the Majority Report
offer no solution to the question
Of the future fate of the University
Hospital.
Answer.
The University authorities insist
that this hospital must be closed il
Ia pichrpno1