Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:ahr:ahomeo04-miscellaneous-01-158-10315 [2012/07/12 10:54]
127.0.0.1 external edit
+++ en:ahr:ahomeo04-miscellaneous-01-158-10315 [2017/07/27 09:50]
46.161.9.20
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== MISCELLANEOUS.======
+wh0cd636823 <a href=http://howtogetviagra.us.com/>how to get viagra</a>
-{{anchor:s2}}Medical Ethics in the Court or Exchequer — <span grade2>Clay, v</span>. <span grade2>{{anchor:s3}}Roberta.</span> {{anchor:s4}}— In the war against Homoeopathy we have always felt that the Allopathists lacked that <span grade2>hearty conviction</span> of the heretical and dangerous character of the Hahnemannian doctrines and practice, which the world had a right to expect. {{anchor:s5}}The virulence which has accompanied every onslaught upon the "new system" has ever seemed to us to partake rather of the pride which resents correction, or of the self-interest which resists, at all risks and with any weapons, the loss of prestige, than of honest uncompromising seal for truth. {{anchor:s6}}Today our suspicions are strengthened. {{anchor:s7}}We look back, and find how notoriously the members of the old school of physic have resisted the arbitration of facts, and hate preferred captious declamation or insulting ridicule to plain logic or decisive experimentation. {{anchor:s8}}They hare eschewed the use of honest weapons, and at length we see them gradually adopting a system of practice which they <span grade2>affect</span> to believe to be in <span grade2>our</span> hands a mere imposture.
-{{anchor:s9}}Allopathy dreads the supplanting influence of the system which it pretends to despise, — <span grade2>qui turret, plus ille timet, —</span> and every confession of the unsatisfactory and contradictory condition of its own teachings and practice is supplemented by an <span grade2>anathema</span> against the doctrines of the new school. {{anchor:s10}}When, with the tide of advancing knowledge, Allopathists find themselves drifting into the use of specifics whose homoeopathieity is notorious, they attempt to silence their own consciences, and to hoodwink the world by declaring that, in <span grade2>their</span> orthodox hands such practice is <span grade2>not</span> Homoeopathy. {{anchor:s11}}So also when, after years of ridicule and opposition, they recently began to realise the value and necessity of "non-perturbative" doses, they "accused themselves by excusing," thus betraying their consciousness of the source from which they had learned — how unwillingly! — so important a lesson in medical reform. {{anchor:s12}}In fact, the more nearly their own practice is found to assimilate with that of the Homoeopathists, the more lustily do they abuse the later. {{anchor:s13}}Professional pride and obstinacy have often, ere this, obstructed the advancement of medical science; but humiliation has surely followed; and in this change of practice on the part of the dominant school, long delayed though it has been, the humiliation is greater, because our opponents feel that they have been learning from those whom they have ever held up to public odium and ridicule:
-{{anchor:s14}}"Aesequitur Nemesisque virum vestigia, servat
-{{anchor:s15}}Ne male quid facias."
-{{anchor:s16}}With what mortification must the men of the old school remember how futile have been all the varied forms of opposition and of persecution which hare been employed against Homoeopathy! {{anchor:s17}}Ridicule during a long period was the favorite weapon of persecution. {{anchor:s18}}It is one easily handled. <span grade2>{{anchor:s19}}Fools</span> can laugh to scorn that which they hare not the brains to understand, and wiser men can conceal, by the same means, their ignorance of that which they have not the honesty or the leisure to examine. {{anchor:s20}}Ridicule is, however, not so fashionable as it once was: it has been found that the <span grade2>winning</span> Homoeopathist can laugh also; and this is not always convenient:
-{{anchor:s21}}"Rides? majors caohinno
-{{anchor:s22}}Concutitur."
-{{anchor:s23}}Then came the ordeal of public opinion. {{anchor:s24}}How kindly and feelingly did the allopathic press appeal to the common sense of the public, asking it to banish Homoeopathy from the face of the earth! {{anchor:s25}}Such appeals, however, instead of injuring or retarding the progress of this medical reform, only brought to bear, from without, a greater pressure in favor of a system whose remedies are innocuous and even pleasant, and whose cures are public facts. {{anchor:s26}}Then arose a cry of wrath and of malediction. {{anchor:s27}}Homoeopathic practitioners were pointed out as swindlers and impostors, and their "dupes" were cursed as "imbeciles.{{anchor:s28}}" The <span grade2>Lancet</span> even prayed a prayer, too horrible almost to copy, in which a hope was expressed that the bones of the patients of the Homoeopathists might become "marrowless," the "flesh rotten," etc <span grade2>Proh pudor!</span> {{anchor:s29}}Even the wrath of the medical press, however, served to advance the cause of truth, inasmuch as it called into existence a library of argumentative literature, and an accumulation of evidence which are among the most remarkable phenomena in the history of medical reform.
-{{anchor:s30}}Open and underhanded attempts to influence the senate against Homoeopathy have been made, and have signally failed. {{anchor:s31}}The clause introduced into the Medical Act of 1859 for our behalf and protection, despite the opposition of the dominant school is the testimony of an enlightened class on behalf of the doctrines of Hahnemann. {{anchor:s32}}What shall we say, however, of those men, members of examining bodies, officers of medical corporations, who, in their hatred of Homoeopathy, systematically break or evade that clause? <span grade2>{{anchor:s33}}Y</span>et such men there are — bad citizens — the high priests of prejudice!
-{{anchor:s34}}Recognising, at length, the failure of existing means of opposition, the allopathic body, a year or two ago, resolved to establish a moral quarantine; homoeopathic practitioners were to be doomed to isolation, or were to be driven without the camp, like the lepers of old. {{anchor:s35}}Up to that period there were some, even the foremost of the profession, who ventured to believe that Homoeopathists were sincere — who did not forget that they were educated gentlemen — and who, therefore, ventured to meet them in friendly council. {{anchor:s36}}This, however, was, at the suggestion of the allopathic press, in the first instance, created an offence against medical etiquette, and consultation with an Homoeopathist was pronounced thereafter to be disgraceful, subjecting the offender to banishment from the favor of his brethren. {{anchor:s37}}We all remember how some, even in the first ranks in medicine and surgery, succumbed before this infamous trades-unionism. {{anchor:s38}}Ferguson, for example, to his disgrace be it said, did penance with sheet and candle in the pages of the <span grade2>Lancet,</span> and gave public promise that he never again would deal with the accursed Samaritans.
-{{anchor:s39}}In the autumn of last year, Dr. Clay, of Manchester, well known as a specialist, was accused of having met a homoeopathic practitioner, at Handley, in the Potteries; and, more than all, he was accused of having taken tea with him! {{anchor:s40}}The accusation first appeared in the <span grade2>Lancet,</span> in the form of an anonymous letter. {{anchor:s41}}Dr. Clay was of course dreadfully indignant. {{anchor:s42}}What I <span grade2>he</span> meet a Homoeopathist, and break bread with him! {{anchor:s43}}Infamous slander! {{anchor:s44}}Let his accusers reveal their name. {{anchor:s45}}Well, two or three accusers did reveal their names; among the number was that of Dr. Roberts, of Manchester. {{anchor:s46}}Against Dr. Roberts Dr. Clay instituted legal proceedings, because, to employ Dr. Clay's own words in a letter to the <span grade2>Manchester Examiner and Times,</span> May 8th, "Dr. Roberta, in a series of letters, some anonymous, published in the <span grade2>Lancet,</span> charged me with meeting Homoeopaths in consultation, and stated that such conduct was considered by the medical profession, as improper and disgraceful; and he offered to find three cases in proof. {{anchor:s47}}Subsequently, however, Dr. Roberts withdrew the oases, not being able to substantiate them; and in one of his pleas he alleged "<span grade2>that it was not disgraceful or improper to meet a Homoeopath in consultation,</span>" being directly contrary to the position first taken by himself, and a contradiction which has yet to be reconciled. {{anchor:s48}}The Court held on the argument that even if such had been admitted to be true, <span grade2>it woe not improper or</span> disgraceful to meet Homoeopaths, and that <span grade2>so far</span> the plea demurred to was good."
-{{anchor:s49}}The following report of the trial is taken from the <span grade2>Manchester Examiner and Times,</span> May 7th:
-{{anchor:s50}}"An action, brought by Dr. Clay, a Manchester physician, against Dr. Roberts for libel, in publishing a letter charging him with having met Homoeopathists in consultation, came before the Court of Exchequer on Monday, upon a demurrer to a plea. {{anchor:s51}}The declaration stated that among the great body of the medical profession it would be thought improper and disgraceful for any one of them to meet in medical consultation any medical practitioner or physician professing or known to be a Homoeopath or Homoeopathist, and deemed a breach of professional etiquette, and injurious to his professional character and reputation. {{anchor:s52}}It then stated that the plaintiff never professed to be nor was a Homoeopath, and that the defendant, well knowing the premises, falsely and maliciously published the libel in question. {{anchor:s53}}To this the defendant pleaded that it was not, nor was considered by the profession to be, disgraceful for any member of it to meet a Homoeopath in consultation; and to this plea 'the plaintiff demurred on the ground that it was no answer to the action. {{anchor:s54}}— Mr. Keane, on the part of the plaintiff, submitted that the declaration was good and the plea bad. {{anchor:s55}}— The Lord Chief Baron said <span grade2>he saw some difficulty in saying that to charge a physician with being a Homoeopathist was a libel.</span> {{anchor:s56}}Would it be a libel to say that a lady of fashion had been seen riding in an omnibus <span grade2>1</span> There must be no confusion between matters of crime or sin, which would disparage a person in society, and matters of mere taste, fashion or caprice, in which there was nothing sinful or improper. {{anchor:s57}}— Mr. Keane suggested that this case involved a different point, as actual injury was sustained. {{anchor:s58}}— The Lord Chief Baron: Would it be a libel to my of a man of rank, wealth, and fashion, that he was so mean and sordid that he burnt tallow instead of wax candles? {{anchor:s59}}Or would it be libellous to say that he habitually ate tripe? {{anchor:s60}}— Mr. Keane: It would never occur to me to object to that. {{anchor:s61}}I will put to your lordship another case, that of a barrister on circuit riding with an attorney in a stage coach, and requesting him to give him briefs in preference to other barristers. {{anchor:s62}}— The Lord Chief Baron: That is a very different matter. <span grade2>{{anchor:s63}}I cannot concur in the suggestion on which the declaration is founded. {{anchor:s64}}A Homoeopathist is a regularly educated medical man.</span> {{anchor:s65}}— Mr. Keane:<span grade2>I have generally found them to be so, and I think they are quite able to defend their own opinion.</span> {{anchor:s66}}— Mr. Baron Bramwell: <span grade2>I think there is a libel in the declaration on the general body of physicians</span> — After some discussion, the Lord Chief Baron said that if the object of the defendant was maliciously to place the plaintiff in an invidious position and injure him in his profession, the publication might be actionable but could not be said to be a libel. {{anchor:s67}}He thought the declaration was bad and the plea good, and that judgment should be for the defendant. {{anchor:s68}}The other judges being of the same opinion judgment was given for the defendant."
-{{anchor:s69}}Thus has the latest and the most cruel invention for the destruction of Homoeopathy contributed to its triumph. {{anchor:s70}}We have no sympathy with Dr. Clay in this matter; but, his dread of all suspicion of taint has done Homoeopathy good service, for it has elicited the testimony of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer, and one of the most scientific and learned members of the bar, Mr. D. Keane, in favor of the respectability and talent of the great body of homoeopathic practitioners. {{anchor:s71}}It has compelled Dr. Roberts to eat his own words, and to plead that it is "<span grade2>not disgraceful nor improper, nor is it so considered by the profession, to meet a Homoeopath in consultation.</span>"
-{{anchor:s72}}What is the position of the allopathic medical press under these adverse circumstances? {{anchor:s73}}The <span grade2>Lancet</span> was wont to be vigilant — to cry aloud, and to spare not; but on the subject of this remarkable trial, neither the <span grade2>Lancet</span> nor its contemporaries have had a word to say. {{anchor:s74}}The silence is indeed significant; for by their tacit agreement with the course pursued by Dr. Roberts, they also are <span grade2>eating their own words —</span> cruel, bitter, lying words — written against our cause during a long series of years.
-{{anchor:s75}}We have always held that in their refusal to meet homoeopathic practitioners in consultation, the Allopathists have placed themselves in a false position. {{anchor:s76}}Dr. Clay, however, <span grade2>has</span> been in the habit of meeting Homoeopathists, and, therefore, <span grade2>his</span> position on the late trial was especially a false one. {{anchor:s77}}During the last ten or fifteen years, we are informed, he has seen patients with Dr. Philips, late of Manchester, and now of London; with Dr. Edmund Smith, now of Likely Wells; with Mr. Cox, who recently left Rochdale for Manchester; with Dr. Lowther Mathews, and his brother, the late Dr. John Mathews, of Manchester; and with other members of the medical profession practising Homoeopathy in Manchester. {{anchor:s78}}Moreover, thirteen or fourteen years ago, Dr. Clay occupied a ward in the Manchester Homoeopathic Hospital, with patients who came to be ovariotomised by him. {{anchor:s79}}In his operations he had the assistance of the medical officers of that institution, and his patients were indebted to the matron and her servants for much of their comfort subsequently thereto. {{anchor:s80}}This is the man who now asserts, that to say he has given homoeopathic practitioners his surgical assistance is to charge him with an improper and disgraceful act No one knows better than Dr. Clay that to do so if neither the one nor the other; but, in terror of being regarded by his <span grade2>confreres</span> of the Manchester Medical Trades Union, or Medico-Ethical Society, as it is absurdly termed, as a "knobstick," and, fearful lest the rapidly advancing reputation of London surgeons in his peculiar speciality should draft off too many ovarian tumours from his consulting room, he has frantically endeavored to out-Herod Herod in pandering to allopathic jealousy of Homoeopathists. {{anchor:s81}}This gross moral cowardice has landed him in the Court of Exchequer, has subjected him to the rebuke of one of the presiding judges, and has inflicted upon him the penalty of cost.
-{{anchor:s82}}What has he gained? {{anchor:s83}}Nothing. {{anchor:s84}}The public will simply regard him as an extremely ridiculous little personage. {{anchor:s85}}The allopathic portion of the profession will tender him no thanks for taking their denunciations of consultations with Homoeopaths <span grade2>in so serious a light;</span> for giving so practical an <span grade2>expose</span> of their <span grade2>malus animus</span> in dealing with Homoeopathy; or, for compelling any of their number to eat their off-repeated words and assertions; while all, whether in or out of the profession, who believe in Homoeopathy, will regard him and the terms of his declaration with the contempt he has so energetically striven to earn for himself. {{anchor:s86}}It cannot but be a matter for regret that one who raised himself to eminence amid many difficulties, who has done much good service to obstetric medicine and surgery, should have displayed so abject and so degrading a subservience to the prejudices of a section of his medical brethren. {{anchor:s87}}While, then, we deplore, Dr Olay's total want of moral courage, and the sacrifice he has made of his independence, we most thoroughly despise the insulting reflections he has thought fit to cast upon us.
-{{anchor:s88}}Baron Bramwell well remarked that the <span grade2>declaration</span> itself was the true libel.
-<span grade2>{{anchor:s89}}[Monthly Homoeopathic Review.</span> {{anchor:s90}}London, June, 1863.
-{{anchor:s91}}%%___________%%
-{{anchor:s92}}SPECIFIC MEDICATION. {{anchor:s93}}— In a systematic work on "General Pathology," by Dr. Bouchut, <span grade2>aggrege</span> Professor of the Faculty of Medicine, in Paris, we find, page 423, the following section:
-{{anchor:s94}}"<span grade2>Specific Medication. {{anchor:s95}}—</span> Specific medication is so called because it sets in operation remedies gifted with the special power of curing a disease. {{anchor:s96}}Reason is not its guide, and it rests only on empiricism. {{anchor:s97}}We learn that a substance possesses certain occult qualities which are capable of neutralizing such or such a morbid condition, and we make use of it according to rules derived from experience. {{anchor:s98}}Just as the <span grade2>morbid</span> specificity represents the peculiar nature and occult qualities of <span grade2>diseases</span>, in the same way the specificity of a <span grade2>remedy</span> indicates <span grade2>its</span> peculiar virtues. {{anchor:s99}}It is a direct and mysterious effect which we must acknowledge and wonder at, without being able to comprehend it.
-{{anchor:s100}}There are, as I have already said in the chapter on general specificity, <span grade2>organic specifics,</span> which prove, by their effects, the possibility of <span grade2>curative specifics.</span> {{anchor:s101}}The action of alcohol upon the brain, of Mercury upon the gums and the salivary glands, of lead upon the extensor muscles of the fingers, of Phosph. upon the maxillary bones, of Iodine upon the glands and upon the mucous membrane, of Aloes upon the rectum, of Belladonna upon the pupil, of Strychnine upon voluntary motion, of Digitalis upon the heart, of Ergot upon the uterus, etc., etc., demonstrate the existence of a specificity of action of remedies upon one organ in preference to another. {{anchor:s102}}But if a drug may exalt or abolish in whole or in part, the functions of an organ, how can we refuse to admit that it may possess a specific power to control some of the morbid alterations of this organ? {{anchor:s103}}It is impossible to do so. {{anchor:s104}}From organic specificity to curative specificity, there is but a single step, and although the former may not lead inevitably to the latter, yet it is difficult to separate them and they mutually explain one another.
-{{anchor:s105}}The object of specific medication is to apply to a disease that occult remedy which experience has shown to be efficacious against it. {{anchor:s106}}Its means are specifics drawn from every kingdom of nature. {{anchor:s107}}It opposes Quin. and its preparations to intermittent and congestive, remittent, malarious and masked fevers, to periodic neuralgias and to all diseases, of which the chief characteristic is <span grade2>Intermittence.</span> {{anchor:s108}}It applies Ammonia to drunkenness, that is to say, to acute alcoholism; Belladonna to <span grade2>morbid impression emanating from a focus of scarlatina epidemic, for the purpose of protecting those not already attacked;</span> Sulphur as a prophylactic against measles. {{anchor:s109}}It employs Veratrin and Sulphate of Quinine in large doses in acute articular rheumatism, which recovers very rapidly under their action. {{anchor:s110}}And, finally, we must record under this head, with the title of <span grade2>specifics</span>, the employment of Iodine in scrofula and scrofulous. affections; of Mercury and Iodide of Mercury in syphilis and its varieties; of Iron in chlorosis; of Tartrate of Antimony and Potassa in acute hemorrhage from the uterus; of Vaccine matter against the predisposition to Variola; of Cina against Ascarides; of Granatum, of Felix mas. and of Kousso against taenia, etc., etc.
-<span grade2>{{anchor:s111}}I wish it were in my power to say that every malady has its specific; unhappily</span> this is <span grade2>not the case;</span> and the period of the realization of my desires is still very remote. {{anchor:s112}}Nevertheless, what science has hitherto accomplished, gives us ground for believing that she will yet extract new secrets from nature. {{anchor:s113}}Already there is talk of a specific for yellow fever discovered in the poison of the viper, prepared by M. Humboldt. {{anchor:s114}}* * May this hope not prove deceptive, and may discoveries of new specifics still increase the consideration and honor of that science which ministers most to the needs of humanity.!"
-{{anchor:s115}}Homoeopathy furnishes a <span grade2>method</span> of discovering such specifics, — and not merely of discovering a specific for a <span grade2>class of diseases —</span> such as fever, scrofula, etc; but for <span grade2>each individual case</span> of illness — a method therefore of attaining with a greater completeness than even he had conceived possible, this, which M. Bouchut recognises as the great desideratum, "a specific for every malady!{{anchor:s116}}" DUNHAM.
-----
-====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======
-^ Source: | The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 04 No. 01, 1863, pages 43-48 |
-^ Description: | Miscellaneous; Medical Ethics in the Court or Exchequer; Specific Medication |
-^ Author: | Ahomeo04 |
-^ Year: | 1863 |
-^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting |
-^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum |

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools