Szemészet, 2004 (141. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2004-06-01 / 2. szám
186 Szemészet heilkunde” undertook to publish, in German, the papers read before the new Association. And indeed, in Volume 14 of that journal (1905), on pages 320 to 367 we can find the texts of the lectures given before the Hungarian Association. Thus the forerunner of today’s Society came into being, with the official name “Association of the Ophthalmologists of Hungary” (“Magyarország Szemorvosainak Egyesülete”). The Constitution with the requisite modifications had been duly countersigned on 14 October 1904 by Dr. Séllyei, Ministerial Counsellor, on behalf of the Royal Minister for Home Affairs. Consequently the Society’s official seal now bears the date 1904, since indeed it was in that year that the 30 foundermembers formed their Association. In subsequent years an administrative session together with a scientific conference was held annually; the first such conference took place at Whitsun 1905. This is why the year of foundation, according to some, is held to be 1905; however, we must not forget that the scientific sessions were only a part of the Association’s functions. The true foundation took place unquestionably in 1904, exactly 100 years ago. Some significant points from the Constitution authorised by the Minister are summarised below. Membership was to be open to any doctor entitled to practise in Hungary, who applied to the Association’s Executive Committee, and who undertook to pay the annual membership fee of 5 Crowns. If a member failed to pay the fee for two successive years, his membership was to lapse. The Executive Committee was to comprise 8 members and the Secretary, who were to be chosen by secret ballot of those present at the general meeting. The Committee’s mandate was to be for 4 years. It was the Committee’s duty to decide on the date of the general meeting, to propose the scientific topics to be discussed, and also to invite suitable lecturers. In effect, the Association was in charge of all aspects of the profession’s business. The official journal of the Association was to be the aforementioned publication “Szemészet”, which in 1904 was already in its 41st year of existence. Naturally the members were entitled to propose topics either for lectures or for printed articles. The custom was that the lectures were subsequently published in full. According to the Constitution, for major decisions the approval of two-thirds of those present at the meeting was required. By the time of the first general meeting, held on 11 June 1905, the number of members had grown from the original 30 to 67. The Executive (“igazgató választmány” or Elected Management Committee), chosen by written secret ballot, comprised the following members: István Csapodi, Vilmos Goldzieher, Emil Grósz, Károly Hoór, József Imre, Vilmos Leitner, Zoltán Somogyi, and Adolf Szily. László Blaskovics was elected as Association Secretary. Forty seven members were present in 1905 at that first general meeting and the subsequent scientific sessions. Three of the 47 ophthalmologists were women: Margit Genersich, Irma Herczogh, and Irén Markbreiter. The scientific sessions took place on the 11th and 12th of June. The inaugural scientific session of the Association was chaired first by Adolf Szily, then by Károly Hoór. The first speaker was Vilmos Goldzieher, who lectured on the pathology of trachoma. He was followed by József Imre, with a lecture entitled “The current position regarding treatments for trachoma”. Extensive discussion followed with, in all, nine participants; a significant number, especially considering the small total membership. After the discussion on that paper, István Csapodi spoke on “A case of panophthalmitis of systemic origin”. The point of interest of the case was that while the cataract surgery had been performed on 23 August, the inflammation, at first appearing as endophthalmitis (hypopyon) but later developing into panophthalmitis, commenced only on 31 December; 4 months after surgery. In the absence of antibiotics, the doctor prescribed treatment with leeches and warm bandages. The inflammation continued for 4 months, and resulted in the shrivelling of the eye. The surgeon commented: “I was unable to comprehend the occasion for the panophthalmitis. I cannot conceive that there could exist such a lurking infecting corpuscle, which would lie in wait for a period of 4 months before launching its destructive attack... But the eye might perhaps during the operation have developed a condition of ‘locus minoris resistentiae’, which in due course precipitated the crisis.” During the later sessions another five, rather short, case reports were presented. Three concerned pupillary and iris developmental abnormalities, one a case of keratosis corneae, and one of keratosis conjunctivae. The final presentation was concerned with radium treatment for epithelioma of the eyelid. It was reported that the tumours “regressed”, and there was no mention of any complications. Two lecturers dealt with the topic of cataract surgery. Adolf Szily spoke on “The surgical treatment of old-age cataract”. His text is extremely interesting and contains many wise and well-informed observations. He also touches on various important ethical considerations. For example he writes, regarding indications for surgery: “As a rule, all mature cataracts should be operated on. But even then the surgeon needs to use his discretion: for instance if the patient has a high fever and is in a weakened condition, while the other eye is still usable, then it is better to abstain from intervention. I have witnessed certain cases, with elderly persons, where the excitement attendant on the surgery led to such a marasmus that it prevented the regained vision in the blind eye from being utilised.” What an elegantly-formulated illustration these lines give us of the moral principle that one should never perform an operation merely for the sake of increasing one’s “total score”. The second lecture on cataract, titled “When to operate on secondary cataract”, was given by László Blaskovics. During the two-day scientific programme there was only one paper on an experimental topic, namely the lecture by Lajos Vermes titled “Experiments on quinine blindness”. Amongst his 100 000 non-hospital patients, Dr. Vermes had met with two cases of visual disturbance due to quinine. Therefore he had investigated the eye-damage produced in dogs by subcutaneous injections of quinine, and his findings were now reported. Magdolna Zajácz
