« AnteriorContinuar »
crimination of 'Schools' in the United States is the result of direct persecution. The persecution commenced in the so-called ‘ regular' profession. The American public, however, will never be satisfied with any sort of persecution; the “under dog' will be sustained by public sentiment.”
So diplomacy and cunning have replaced the grosser means for disposing of homeopaths. There is evidence to show that the Old School in general has adopted the policy of “loving us to death.” Results thus far justify the wisdom of their plan, for this seems the most formidable attack homeopathics have been compelled to meet. Men whom coercion, ridicule, abuse, , or what not failed to move, have been taken into camp. Flattered by recognition and consideration shown, perhaps withal having visions of added prestige,—they give up their birthright. It is very attractive, seductive, yet what does it amount to but toleration for a purpose ?
What can the old school give us to compensate for the sacrifice? Is it too great a stretch of imagination to fancy the allopaths saying to themselves of every homeopath diverted from his legitimate place and affiliations: “One more homæopathic prop gone: one more troublesome adversary out of the fight.” Unity of the profession is all right, provided it can be brought about at a proper time and on suitable terms. Has the old school ever acknowledged that we stand for anything of value in medicine? Have they yielded to us anything out of line with their ultimate purpose, or have they ever lost sight of that purpose,—to get rid of us as a school? That is the present price of unity. If they would acknowledge that homeopathy represents a great truth in medicine; would recognize the fact, and teach it in their colleges, peace could be made on honorable terms. True, some individual allopaths appear fair-minded and liberal. A few have taken kindly to the proposition to consider homeopaths specialists in materia medica and therapeutics. They, however, cut no figure in their school at large, and everything still points to its accord with the eliminative policy toward dissenters.
What is the position of the homeopathic school? What are we doing to preserve our identity, and to foster the heritage
entrusted to our keeping? The accepted definition of a homwopathic physician, formulated by Dr. Eugene H. Porter, is correct. There is no reason why we should be circumscribed or bigoted. We are rightly given plenty of rope, but ought to know better than to hang ourselves. Homeopathic materia medica and therapeutics are neither complete or perfect,-less perfect than they should be at this day,—and probably never could become a complete system of cure. Yet we know it to be best and most comprehensive the world has seen. What are we doing to amplify and strengthen it? What fraction of our time and effort is given to its development? In short, what is the sum total of progress in our distinctive branch of the healing art during the past twenty-five years. Does not the work of our Fathers in Medicine put us to shame!—and they lived, a mere handful, without seeking something new, and where do we look for it? What is new in homeopathy? Where are the modern provings! Where are reprovings to be sought? What space in society proceedings is given to verifications, homeopathic cures, and materia medica bureaus? What in therapeutics are we most concerned to find, the curative similimum or a new “get easy quick' mixture?
Homeopaths have, in some respects, always been alert and active but, in these latter days, do not cover sufficient ground. Matters of vital importance are permitted to go by default.
In our eagerness to further special work, to keep pace with the alleged progress of science, to be up to date, we have gone astray.
We alloy the most scientific, the most practical, the most valuable system of cure by drugs,—the very essence of our separate existence, and the only possible excuse therefore,—to remain before the world in the garb of half a century ago. Opportunities to modernize homeopathy and place it on a dignified, impregnable basis are regularly disregarded. Whose fault is this but our own ?
I fear the answer to the question, “What are we doing?” must be this: “Playing into the hands of the enemy.''
The old school cannot be blamed for using every means in its power to accomplish its ends. Were conditions reversed, we would probably do the same. The attitude of a minority, in
the right should be that of unceasing vigilance; of constant opposition; of tireless efforts to win,—to gain every point, great or small, at all times; of uncompromising devotion to principle.
The name “homeopath” should be to every one of us a source of jealous pride. In general practice, and in most branches of special work, notwithstanding the disparity in numbers, we are able to more than hold our own. In consideration of our definite clinical triumphs; of reformation in the practices of the dominant school, concededly due to our influences; of the significant fact that most of the things, for which the earlier homoeopaths were divided and persecuted, have been adopted by the successors of their persecutors, why should we blush for our name! We have the right and ought to be not apologetic but proud and aggressive. I fear we do not always appreciate our rights and privileges. Large numbers, great institutions, distinguished men, etc., of the older profession are attractive, but a minority on such a foundation and with such a record as ours is also attractive, and is besides something worth fighting for.
Of one thing we may and should be ashamed, i. e., to allow homeopathy to wither or be lost, and that is the proposition before us. It is a pity our affairs have come to such allopaths dare to say there are no homeopaths. It appears as if we, as a school in medicine, have come to the parting of the ways. We must make a choice: either continue to drift on toward obliteration, or brace up, correct our faults, and push ahead where we belong. We are approaching a condition where we shall become wretchedly poor homeopaths and worse allopaths,-neither the one thing or the other. We can yet set ourselves right, assert ourselves, and save the cause. We must individually become better homeopaths. We must have more and better homeopathy in our societies and institutions. The position of ourselves and our organizations should be unequivocal. The victories of our school were not won with combination tablets, proprietary compounds or coal-tar products. It is not necessary to aim for exclusiveness, yet, if we are to continue as homeopaths, let us be such in a reasonable sense—at least sufficiently practical to deserve the name. We must make ho
meopathic interests pre-eminent. There is a unity in the profession that is most essential; I refer to unity among ourselves. Our numbers are too small to permit divisions. This should be considered from a broad viewpoint. Personal or local considerations, potency questions and the like, ought not to govern. Regardless of factional tendencies, and seductive influences, we owe allegiance to our professional as well as our National colors.
It is encouraging to note, here and there, evidences of a genuine homeopathic awakening. Let everything be done to further it.—'The Chironian.
COLLEGE MEN IN MEDICINE.- The June Bulletin of Yale University concerning the President's report says that the increasing strictness in the requirements for admission to the best medical schools naturally tends to draw into the profession more and more of the best men who go out from our colleges, and there can be no doubt that the number of college graduates taking medical degrees throughout the country is increasing from year to year.
Some of the best scholars and ablest men who have been graduated from Yale have gone into medicine. While there has certainly been in recent years no deterioration in the quality of Yale graduates who take up medical studies, it has been evident for some time that Yale College is not contributing its proportion of men to this profession.
Of the two thousand and more students having the bachelor's degree who were enrolled in medical schools in the United States in the year 1902-03, the Academical Department of Yale furnished less than seventy-five. Figures also show that for the last decade the percentage of Yale graduates entering medical schools is rather steadily diminishing.
From 1880 to 1900 the number of graduates of Yale College taking medical degrees has been increasing, but the increase has not kept pace with the increase in the size of the classes.
While there has been considerable variation from year to year in the per cent. of those taking up medical studies, the average per cent. has pretty steadily declined. For the ten classes (1880-89) ten per cent. became physicians and for the next ten classes (1890-99) only eight per cent. --Medical Review of Reviews.
First note of
Published by The Denver Journal Publishing Company.
JAMES WILLIAM MASTIN, M.D., MANAGING EDITOR,
230-1-2 MAJESTIC BLDG., DENVER, COLO.
J. WYLIE ANDERSON, M. D., BUSINESS
1-2 STEELE BLOCK, DENVER, COLO.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS: JAMES TYLER KENT, M.D.,
JULIA C. LOOS, M.D., 92 State Street, Chicago, Ill.
705 N. Second Street, Harrisburg, Pa. L. CURTIS PHILLIPS, M.D.,
NORMAN M. SMITH, M. D., 12 Palifax Street, Pensacola, Fla.
3000 Hennepin Ave., Minneapolis, Minn. RUDOLPH F. RABE, M. D.,
V. A. HUTTON, M. D.
118 E. Second Street, Florence, Colo. CARRIE E NEWTON M.D.,
HARRIET HORNER, M. D,
ALBERT F. SWAN, M. D.,
SAMUEL S. SMYTHE, M.D., 2908 Lake Park Ave., Chicago, Ill.
230-1-2 Majestic Bldg., Denver, Colo. NORMA M. BALDWIN, M. D.,
R. del MAS, M. D.,
J. E. HUFFMAN,
Communications of a literary nature, books for review and exchanges should be addressed to the Managing Editor. Those relating to business matters, inquiries for advertising rates, space, etc., should be addressed to the Business Manager.
MATTERS FOR PUBLICATION, NOTICES OF CHANGE IN ADVERTISEMENTS SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS BY THE 15TH OF THE MONTH PRECEDING DATE OF PUBLICATION TO INSURE ATTENTION. No attention whatever will be paid to communications unless accompanied by signature and address of the author. We would respectfully request that correspondents be particular to write upon but one side of the paper, write plainly, spell correctly, and bear in mind that there is such a thing as the proper use of capital letters and punctuation marks.
THE LEGAL STATUS OF VARIOLINUM.-I wish to call attention once more to the treatment of this topic and to say that in November number of THE CRITIQUE will appear another interesting article upon this subject from the pen of Dr. A. M. Linn, homeopathic member of the State Board of Health, lowa, and one of the men most instrumental in inducing local health boards in his state to respect the rights of others.
Inasmuch as these same health boards have been dominated by demands of old-school physicians that antiquated methods