Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1921-10-17

trovcrsy-repcatcdl settled and re-
pcatcdly rcopencd by the Richmond
advocates. have just sent my cid
est son TO the University of Vir-
Einia. to take the pre-medical
course. because after careful in
vcstiEation am convinced that the
Medical School there is the best in
the United States. Whether it's
primacy would continue in new
location is "a matter of the gravcst
doubt. The reputation OF the uni
vcrsity is one OF the chief assets OF
virginia. and. certainly, it's greatest
educational asset.
The quiet of small town. free
from the numerous distractions Of
Il great city. is conducive to the
best study. and the history OF both
American and European Universities
attest this truth.
Tho printed communi cations in
dicatc that good deal of feeling
has been cngcndcrcd. The Virginia
Legislature viii approach this mat
ter In Il purely judicial frame OF
mind and VIII settle it with refer
cncc solely To the best interests of
the state and of medical education.
That body Will not be swaycd bv
passion. prejudice. ii-feclinE or
personalities, nor Will it permit the
question to be debated on anv
ground except the merits Of the con-
trovcrSy While the partisans on
either side may be betrayed into
excess OF language, or make pcr-
sonai charges which have no bear
inG upon the subject the
discussion should he conducted on 3,
nigh plane. worthy .of n great in :
stitution. great historic city and
great State.
IL would be useless To attempt to
review all OF the arguments. pro
and con. but attention may be called
to the Introduction to Supple
mcnt to Bulletin OF the Mcdi-
cal College OF Virginia, June. 1921 :.
the official statement Of the Rich
mond position. in which il is stated +:
Tine Commission on Medical Edu-
cation. created at the last session
OF the Legislature. has made the
following recommendations"
Would It not have been fairer to
have said that the commission. by "A
vote of > 10 I. adopted the recon-
mendation of the Richmond loca
ton? Was ii the intention to con-
vcy the impression that the COM
mission unanimously adopted this
recommendation? The vote was so
close as TO leave the effect of a
hung jury. Both the majority and
the minority filed reports. An cx-
animation OF them will show that
the minority report is buttresscd
by an array of facts and a state
mcnt Of reasons which render II
unassailable.
In this introduction IL lie ,l.o
stated: Only eight years ago DR..
H. y. Alderman. the president: DR..
IL. H. Whitehead, the dean. and the
Board or Visitors of the University
all earnestly advocated the very
plan which is now proposed. and il
only failed of Accomplishment he
cause OF lack OF funds to put /, into
effect"
At that time the University of
Virginia lacked the superb clinical
facilities which il now enjoys, The
conditions have totally changed and
the current Of medical educational
opinion is now committed to tho
theory that teaching hospital. alb
s"lutely controlled by the Medical
school and in close physical con
tact with-thc University. is essen
tai for proper medical education.
The old adagc is: Wise men
chanEc their minds" and it has
never been Il rcproach in the con-
Sidcration OF fundamental PROPOSE
TONS that conclusions should he al
tered because OF changed conditions.
III the conditions OF the Medical
School of the University were the
same today as they were eight years
ago. no doubt DR.. Alderman would
to k,;,
sion The reasons for his changed
OPINION are far more potent than the
MI honinem argument that he has
changed his mind.
me question is not whether DR..
Alderman has changed his mind.
hut whether changed conditions re-
cure different conclusion from
ihat formerly expressed. He would
not he fit To head a great University
II chained TO the fetch Of consist
ency-the betc noir of small minds
he refused to receive new light
and alter his course accordingly.
II is TO be noted that in the Rul-
lctin referred to number of letters
from doctors are printed, which are
subsequent to the date of the J-to-i
decision of the commission on Med
lcal Education and, therefore. the
majority could not have been in
hucnccd by the opinions OF such
medical authorities. The vast mass
or expert medical educational opin-
ION submitted to the commission
was in favor of the retention Of the
Medical School at the University.
and the two experts, specially called
before the commission, DIR. Abraham
Flcxncr. OF the Rock efeller Founda-
ton, New York. and DR.. William
II. WEIGH. director OF the School OF
Hygiene and Public Health of tho
Johns Hopki ns University. both de-
cidcd in favor OF the University.
When they were called It was sup
posed that their opinion would set
tie the question. because they were
regarded as the most competent,
available medical experts on this
question: yet, the commission, by n
vote Of to 4. ignored this mass
OF expert testimony, and to that ex-
tent exceeded their statutory an
thority. which required them TO
seek the assistance of such trained
experts in medical education. The
Legislature will give this testimony
due weight.
In the bulletin referred TO Is
printed a letter Of DR.. Henry s.
pritchett nresIdant oP III. C,rnouto