Rectal Clinic W. H. KIGER, M.D., 404 Consolidated Realty Bldg. Clinical Laboratory A. H. ZEILER, M.D., 409 Brockman Bldg. LULU H. PETERS, M.D., 933 Title Insurance Bldg. Clerk of the College Miss EDITH PELLEGRIN, 725 West Fifty-first st. Assistant to the Dean Miss EMILY RICHARDS, Morrison Hotel. Druggist P. W. HOWARD, Druggist, 68182 Sunset blvd. Nurses Miss EVA L. PEASE, Scarborough Apts. Miss EMMA BOHANNON, 141 North Robinson st. IV. STAFF OF SPECIAL LECTURERS (Arranged alphabetically) FRANCIS L. ANTON, M.D., Lecturer in Gynecology, 506 Exchange Bldg., Los Angeles. JOHN CARLING, M.D., Lecturer in Orthopedic Surgery, 1124 Black Bldg., Los Angeles. FOSTER K. COLLINS, M.D., Demonstrator in Operative Surgery, 1716 Whitley av., Hollywood. R. S. CUMMINGS, M.D., Lecturer in Medicine, 1215 Merchants National Bank Bldg., Los Angeles. CHAS. W. DECKER, M.D., Lecturer on Military Surgery, 700 Marsh-Strong Bldg., Los Angeles. HENRY DIETRICH, M.D., Lecturer on Pediatrics, 917 Brockman Bldg., Los Angeles. F. S. DILLINGHAM, M.D., Lecturer in Genito-Urinary or Skin Diseases, 602 Lissner Bldg., Los Angeles. WM. DUFFIELD, M.D., Lecturer in Gynecology, 423 Auditorium Bldg., Los Angeles. JOHN C. FERBERT, M.D., Lecturer in Surgery, 222 Bradbury Bldg., Los Angeles. ERNEST B. HOAG, M.D., Lecturer on Child Hygiene, 926 Marsh-Strong Bldg., Los Angeles. GEO. G. HUNTER, M.D., Lecturer in Medicine, 609 Exchange Bldg., Los Angeles. A. HALDEN JONES, M.D., Lecturer on Laboratory Diagnosis, 222 Bradbury Bldg., Los Angeles. MAURICE KAHN, M.D., Lecturer in Surgery, 1018 Brockman Bldg. A. L. KELSEY, M.D., Lecturer on Oto-Laryngology, 1005 Brockman Bldg., Los Angeles. LYELL C. KINNEY, M.D., Lecturer in Roentgenology, 1007 Merchants National Bank Bldg., Los Angeles. F. C. E. MATTISON, M.D., Lecturer in Surgery, Chamber of Commerce Bldg., Pasadena. H. P. NEWMAN, M.D., Lecturer in Gynecology, Timken Bldg., San Diego. P. NEWMARK, M.D., Lecturer in Urology, 726 Marsh-Strong Bldg., Los Angeles. C. E. PHILLIPS, M.D., Lecturer in Surgery, 815 Wright & Callender Bldg., Los Angeles. JOHN L. POMEROY, M.D., Lecturer on Public Health, Monrovia. H. A. ROSENKRANZ, M.D., Lecturer in Genito-Urinary Diseases, 1024 Story Bldg., Los Angeles. ALBERT SOILAND, M.D., Lecturer on Roentgenology, 916 Wright & Callender Bldg., Los Angeles. H. E. SOUTHWORTH, M.D., Lecturer in Gynecology, 410 Wright & Callender Bldg., Los Angeles. WALTER WESSELS, M.D., Lecturer in Medicine, 933 Title Insurance Bldg., Los Angeles. E. H. WILEY, M.D., Lecturer in Surgery, 602 Brockman Bldg., Los Angeles. HISTORY The Los Angeles Medical Department of the University of California, a school for graduates of medicine, may be said to have begun its career in 1886, as the College of Medicine of the University of Southern California. In July, 1909, its property was transferred to the State University, and the institution since that time has continued its work as the Los Angeles Medical Department of the University of California. In order not to duplicate the undergraduate work in medicine which was being conducted by the University of California at its older departments in Berkeley and San Francisco, the Regents decided in 1914, upon the recommendation of the Los Angeles faculty, to limit the work of the Los Angeles Medical Department to instruction for graduate physicians and surgeons; and since that date the department has become a School for Graduates of Medicine, the present courses of which are briefly indicated in this prospectus. Additional information concerning courses in the specialties, etc., will be gladly furnished by the Dean, upon application. OBJECT OF GRADUATE TEACHING-RELATION OF THE STATE THERETO The object of the graduate teaching of the Los Angeles Medical Department is that so well expressed by a layman, Professor H. S. Pritchett, President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, in an address delivered at the dedication of the Robert W. Long Hospital of Indiana University at Indianapolis, June 15, 1914. Excerpts from this address, which was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 22, 1914, and which may well be repeated here as explaining the aim of graduate teaching of the newly instituted Los Angeles Medical Department of the University of California, are as follows: The layman who ventures to speak concerning a matter so technical in some respects as medical education owes perhaps an explanation to the public and to the medical practitioners. To put the whole matter tersely, the practice of medicine is a quasi public profession. The laws which admit to its practice must be framed by those who are not members of the profession but who are looking at it from the point of view of the public good. Medicine will never gain its rightful place until the intelligent layman, the legislator, the citizen, realize the public nature of the profession of medicine and their own obligations as to its support, its standards and its regulations. It is this last relationship, namely, the relation of the state to medicine and to medical teaching, which we need at this time most clearly to develop. We need to distinguish between the opportunity of the individual on the one side and the obligation of the state on the other. The public health of the inhabitants of a state is without doubt the largest single interest with which a state needs to concern itself. Expressed even in commercial terms, it exceeds all others. Disease, ill-health, insanitary public conditions, cost more than any other form of public neglect. The conservation of the public health is therefore the largest interest to which the state must give its attention. Our American commonwealths have begun only within a very few years to be conscious of this problem. In a few states steps have been taken to deal with the problem in orderly and efficient form. The present demand for an effective organization of public health agencies arises out of the progress of what we call today scientific medicine as compared with what twenty-five years ago was empirical or sectarian medicine. The rise of preventive medicine and the enlargement of the state's function in the conservation of the public health is rapidly bringing about a change of attitude in our whole social and economic treatment of disease and ill-health. In the past the care of the sick poor has been a matter of charity; the obligations of society no less than the ideals of Christian service have urged civilized men to continual effort for those suffering from illness who are in want of the necessities of life. This obligation and this service will not cease, but the vista which preventive medicine opens up enables us to anticipate a time when a large share of the suffering and disease which now falls to the lot of the poor will be prevented when the conditions of living will be more wholesome, when the need of charitable service will be limited to those cases which no preventive measures can safeguard. The entrance of the state into the great work of health preservation, while it will not be a substitute for private philanthropy, will nevertheless relieve much of the suffering to which private philanthropy has hitherto ministered, and it ought to diminish in an ever increasing measure the suffering and the misery of poor and rich alike. This is one field of human endeavor in which an ounce of prevention is worth many pounds of cure. There are two fields of medical education which are generally overlooked and which the state school of medicine must vigorously undertake-one is the education of the public in the elementary knowledge of sanitary matters, the other is the education of the present generation of practitioners into an appreciation of the modern conception of the profession of medicine. I venture to spend a few words on each of these topics. There remains still an unfilled duty to the men now in the practice. Ill-trained as many of them are, they represent in a large majority of cases the victims of a condition. Few men deliberately choose a defective and impossible medical training. Well-meaning young men by the thousand have gone into such schools in the honest belief that they were to receive a fitting preparation for the profession of medicine. The victim of the commercial medical school usually finds out his mistake after he gets into practice. If he has the right spirit he seeks by every possible means to repair his defects. To such men the state school of medicine should offer a most hospitable opportunity. The post-graduate school of medicine as it has hitherto been conducted has generally grown up apart from the university medical school. It has been generally conducted by groups of practitioners, sometimes with ex cellent purposes and motives, sometimes with a very strong commercial flavor. The post-graduate school should be by all means a part of the university medical school. To no other man will the spirit and ideals of the university hospital, laboratory, and medical school be more welcome. And in no way can the medical school educate the people of a whole state so surely as to establish a helpful relation with every practitioner in the most remote village who has ambition for improvement. Every such postgraduate student becomes a center of education in the public health. I venture also to say one word of the significance to the state and to the public health service of an educated profession of medicine. No method has been devised in our country or on the other side by which unfit men can be excluded from the profession of law, of medicine, of the ministry, or of any other great profession, but the experience of the older country shows that there is one condition which can be imposed which does more than all others to bar out the unfit and the unworthy, and that is the standard which is imposed by the demand for a high order of preliminary education. No other condition can be imposed which will in the long run bring together so unselfish, so skilled, so devoted a class of men into a profession as the demand for a good preliminary education. Among our American communities this demand has been looked on as somewhat undemocratic, an argument which has been used with the greatest possible effect by the commercial medical school. As a matter of fact, there is nothing undemocratic in such a demand. The right to practice medicine is not one into which a man is born. It is a right conferred on him by the state under such conditions as the state may fix. There is one condition which the state can make which in the long run will bring into the service of the profession and of the public physicians of such high order as the requirement that they shall be, first of all, educated men, and the influence which the profession itself will have on the public will never attain its right proportions until such a condition has been accepted. Looking forward, then, to the history of medicine in your commonwealth for the next decade, one can well believe that the conservation of the public health will be one of the chief functions of the state, that this work will be carried out by an organization so planned that all its factors may cooperate freely and heartily, and that the very center of such organization, furnishing to it the life-blood of devotion, of enthusiasm and of high endeavor, will be the state school of medicine, where practitioner and teacher, where student and investigator mingle together in an atmosphere which is charged not only with scientific skill but also with the highest conceptions of patriotism. |