EDITOR'S TABLE. 



851 



that which perfectly accords with our 

 own notions. That we are not parti- 

 sans in this matter should have heen 

 inferred from our frequent habit of 

 giving replies to one-sided statements, 

 as is done in the present number, and 

 also from the fact that we have pub- 

 lished sharp reflections upon the regu- 

 lar school of medicine. The article en- 

 titled "Quackery within the Profes- 

 sion," which appeared in the March 

 number of the "Monthly" of last year, 

 sufficiently attests this: it was an un- 

 sparing denunciation of the quackish 

 tendencies that are growing up with- 

 in the limits of the old orthodox medi- 

 cal school. 



We are much inclined to accept the 

 view taken in that article, which is that 

 " systems and cures of any class or de- 

 scription " adopted by any school of 

 medicine are of the nature of quack- 

 ery. We agree with the writer when 

 he says : " There is no system, or cure, 

 or charm, or nostrum, known to the 

 profession ; our calling consists solely 

 in the rational study and treatment of 

 disease on common-sense principles." 

 Whether a valid " system" of practical 

 medicine will ever become possible is 

 doubtful, but it is sufficiently certain 

 that the present state of science does 

 not warrant it ; and, in this condition 

 of things, any one method of cure to be 

 generally followed must be misleading 

 and injurious. Yet, to the mass of the 

 people, there is something fascinating 

 in a medical theory that can be put into 

 a neat and simple formula. And the 

 effect of this is more pernicious in pro- 

 portion as these formulas are made the 

 rallying-cries of the different schools 

 of medical practice. These schools are 

 candidates for popular favor. The pat- 

 ronage of the physician comes from the 

 people ; the people are ignorant and 

 prejudiced, and easily taken by catch- 

 words and clap-trap; while the doctors, 

 as a class, are sufficiently human to avail 

 themselves more or less of this state of 

 facts in the way of business. The 



tendency of practitioners is to mag- 

 nify the differences among the several 

 'pathies, and thus to favor the notion 

 that some one of them contains the fun- 

 damental truth, while all others are es- 

 sentially erroneous, and, as the people 

 are generally educated to identify them- 

 selves with sects and parties, they are 

 well prepared to become partisans in 

 the matter of medical treatment. Thus 

 doctors and laymen react upon each 

 other to strengthen injurious prejudices. 

 As Dr. R. O. Beard remarked, in an 

 article upon "The Schools of Medi- 

 cine," which we printed last February : 

 " Eooted in the professional ignorance 

 and bigotry of almost a century ago, 

 fostered by the bitter rivalries and ex- 

 clusivism of opposing theorists, these 

 differences have been taken up and fed 

 by popular opinion, until they serious- 

 ly embarrass the progress of medical 

 knowledge, and tend to destroy all faith 

 in the science and art of healing. The 

 medical fraternity at large, and of both 

 schools alike, is responsible for this un- 

 fortunate condition of affairs. When 

 professional men, who, supposably, rep- 

 resent the best phases of liberal thought 

 and scientific culture, lend their names 

 to the partisanship of mere theory, and 

 array themselves under sectarian titles 

 which signify their adherence to an ex- 

 clusive dogma, it is small wonder that 

 the laity should follow in their foot- 

 steps, and cast their views into the yet 

 narrower mold of unreasoning preju- 

 dice." 



The fact is, medical practice is far 

 in advance of medical theory. Physi- 

 cians can do a good deal more than 

 they can explain. The advice of the old 

 judge to the young judge "Refrain 

 from too much expounding, for you 

 will generally be right in your decisions 

 and wrong in your reasons for them" 

 is not without its bearing upon the 

 medical profession. Medical philoso- 

 phizing may be Avell, but it must be 

 kept within limits, or it will certainly 

 mislead in practice. The doctor who 



