[Ophthalmopathology between yesterday and tomorrow]

As financial resources run short there are considerations to integrate the ophthalmopathological laboratories of the eye hospitals into the institutes for pathology. The term "return" which is used sometimes in the discussion is historically incorrect as the pathology of the eye--similar to dermatopathology in the clinics for dermatology--was developed quite independently from general pathology in the eye hospitals over the last 150 years. Due to the work of outstanding ophthalmologists like Otto Becker, Theodor Leber, Julius Michel, and Ernst Fuchs ophthalmopathology augmented the ophthalmological knowledge much more than any other subdiscipline in the late 19th and the early 20th century. At any time, the very close link of the clinical picture and the morphology proved to be very advantageous for the understanding of the diseases. As a consequence of new diagnostic tools and progress in therapy the pathology of the eye is always changing and it is a still very important motor of modern ophthalmology. Whether in the clinical or in the experimental field: classical ophthalmopathology serves to characterise the phenotype, and nothing indicates that genomics or proteomics will make it unnecessary within the foreseeable future. Pure diagnostic pathology of the eye does not cover the costs. However, there are enough good reasons to keep the ophthalmopathological laboratories as parts of the eye hospitals.