We hear many complaints nowadays concerning the superseding of the trained judgment and clinical experience of the practitioner by the laboratory investigations of the pathologist. It is asserted that, with an overweening arrogance, the man who is supposed to represent "scientific medicine" to-day is prepared with his test tubes, his reagents, and his microscope to settle offhand those matters of difficult diagnosis that a little while ago were the peculiar prerogative of the trained clinician.
In Northwest Medicine for April, Dr. Griswold turns the tables by a counter attack. He complains that with a yearly widening and increasingly important field, but little opportunity is afforded the pathologist to do justice to his side of the healing art. He is rarely called in consultation, even in hospitals with a pathologist on the staff. "He is everywhere excluded," says Dr. Griswold, "from gaining practical knowledge, and then his work is criticised as