Medical reform: being an examination into the nature of the prevailing system of medicine : and an exposition of some of its chief evils; with allopathic revelations. A remedy for the evil

Chapter I. Allopathy And Homoeopathy

Allopathy a system of crude dogmas — Shuns investigation — Allopathic intolerance — Liberty of conscience — Necessity of learning before judging — Misrepresentation — Enmity to homceopathy — Popular faith in allopathy like that in paganism 1

Chapter II. Allopathy

Origin of medicine— Medical theories — Allopathy a mixture of old theories— Allopathy made no real progress for 2000 years — Relation between allopathy and the collateral branches of medicine — Allopathic experience— Allopathic specifics — Allopathic palliation — Evils of— Allopathic sheet-anchors — Artificial drug diseases — Allopathic medicines shorten the duration of life 10

Chapter III. Bleeding

Its origin— A sheet-anchor— Inflammation— Notions about— What Inflammation is not What it is — Bleeding in inflammation — Importance of the blood in the economy— Apoplexy— Notions about the disease — What is the cause of apoplexy — Effects of bleeding in apoplexy —

Vlll,

CONTENTS

Bleeding calculated to produce the disease — Bursting of a blood vessel — Cause of — Effects of bleeding in such cases — Bleeding a man in the jaws of death — Diseases brought on by bleeding — Combe’s opinion of bleeding — The “ huffy coat” on inflammatory blood — Bleeding in inflammation of the lungs — Dr. Tod’s opinion of— Injurious effects of. 27

Chapter IV. Doctors Differ

Contradictory opinions about the nature and treatment of fever — Pericarditis— The effects of squills — Of opium — Doctors differ, case of — Contradictory opinions about consumption — About delii’ium tremens — Treatment of rheumatic fever, &c. — Cause of these contradictions — Remedy for 1 •• 52

Chapter V. The Homoeopathic Law

Prevailing ignorance on medical subjects — Prejudice in favour of allopathy—Origin of— Study of homoeopathy— The curative relationship between a disease and the medicine which cures it — This relationship is the homoeopathic law — Nature of disease — Pathogenetic effects of drugs— How to find out the curative relationship— Primary and secondary action of drugs — Doctrine of antipathy — Doctrine of similarity— Its relationship to facts — Proving of drugs on the healthy body —Importance of— Of no use to allopathy— Doctrine of antipathy impracticable— The homoeopathic law the only sa‘’e and certain guide — All natural phenomena guided and regulated by law 62

Chapter VI. Objections Against Homceopathy

Contradictory nature of — Homceopaths 'cure by imagination and by attending to diet and regimen — Homoeopaths few in number — Homoeopathy, if true, would have been sooner discovered — Some homceopathists

CONTENTS

IX.

have recanted-HomcBopathy denies all the laws of physic and chemistry The killing and curing powers of medicine — The small doses — These doses do not constitute homoeopathy — Different degrees of susceptibility— Homoeopathic remedies prepared to suit these — The dose must vary according to the effect to be produced — Dangerous and deadly effects of large doses — The power of small doses proved by experience — Erroneous information about small doses — Homoeopathy opposed to common sense — And to the experience of the profession — Homoeopathy proved a failure by Dr. Andral 7b

CHAPTEE VII.

EVIDENCE IN FAVOUE OF HOMOEOPATHY.

The practice of homoeopathy not perfect — The law is — Allopathic scepticism in regard to evidence — Testimony of Hufeland — Eau — Hartmann — Evidence from general statistics — From a comparison of statistics in inflammation of the lungs — In pleuritis — In peritonitis — In yellow fever — Valne of homoeopathy in violent and dangerous diseases — Allopathic speculations about the nature and treatment of cholera — Destructive nature of allopathic treatment in that disease — Allopathic treatment in favour of camphor — Homoeopathy and the Board of Health — Dr. Maclaughlin’s testimony in favour of homoeopathy — Allopathic and homoeopathic statistics compared 102

CHAPTEE VIII.

OPPOSITION AND PEESECUTION.

Case of Ambrose Pare — of Dr. Greenfield — Collegiate opposition to Homoeopathy — And Denunciation of Homoeopaths — Editorial Defamation and Slander — Dr. Combe and our Opponents — Medical Directory and Homoeopaths — Cause of Persecution 132

CHAPTEE IX.

ALLOPATHIC KEVELATIONS.

DiflTerent Classes of Medical Men — Confessions of Dr. Forbes— of Bichat — Dr. Guy — Boerhaave — Gardner — Andrew Combe — Adam Smith

X.

CONTENTS.

— Dr. Eouth — Paris — Professor Widekind — Hufeland— James Joiuj •on — Franks — Reid — Kering Hansen — Sir Astley Cooper — Kieser — Addison — Abernethy — Professor Gregory — Dr. Bailie — Dickson — Brown — Leeson — The Editor of the Lancet — The Medical Circulkr — Dublin Medical Journal — Medical Times 146

CHAPTER X.

PROGRESS OF HOMCEOPATHY.

The Necessity for Medical Reform — Progress of— Interest of the Public in this Reform— Allopaths must investigate Homceopathy, &e., &c. 170

Preface

The subject of Medical Eeform is one that has agitated the Medical Profession for many years. All thinking men in the profession felt the need of reform, though none seemed to know the right remedy. At all events the profession could never agree among themselves as to what was necessary. Twenty- two years ago, an

attempt was made to introduce a bill into Parliament to regulate the practice of medicine in this country; it failed. Eepeated attempts have been made since then, but with no better results.

In the beginning of 1852, the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association for England proposed a Draft Bill, which was to represent the wants of the profession generally ; but in place of that being the case, opposition bills were drawn out by the Scotch and Irish Universities, and by Sir John Forbes. The result was, that the Home Secretary was puzzled, not knowing what measure to support ,* and so dismissed them all.

IV.

PREFACE.

During the present year a Medical Eeform Bill emanated from the Edinburgh University ; but, as on former occasions, another bill was drawn out by the College of Surgeons, in opposition to it. In May last, a deputation waited upon Sir George Grey. Sir George told them that, on one occasion he remembered two deputations coming on one day, each representing, as they said, the general body of the profession, but they each espoused totally different principles— and, in fact, the bill to which he referred had been torn to pieces by the profession.'’ No wonder that Lord Palmerston, on one occasion, intimated to a deputation that, the profession would require to learn to agree among themselves, before Parliament could do anything for them.

It appears to us that not one of all these bills could do any real good ; even though they had passed into law. They would not have altered the practice of medicine one pin’s point — that practice would just have continued to be what it has always been. And how could it be otherwise ? The grand evil that lay at the root of all the others in practical medicine, was altogether overlooked and ignored by these bills.

PREFACE.

V.

The great reform Avhich was needed, was one which should make the practice of medicine safer in its application, and more successful in its results. No doubt there are many things connected with medicine that might be improved ; but this is the first and most essential reform that is required in medicine. And our object in the following pages shall be to assist in bringing about such a reform ; not by an appeal to Parliament, but to the judgment and good sense of the public.

In doing this it will be absolutely necessary to make an examination into the nature and extent of the evils and deficiencies which exist in the prevailing practice of medicine, so as to show that a great reform is actually required. And though in doing so we may have occasion to use j)lain language, we distinctly and emphatically declare, that we liave no personal bad feelings towards any in the profession, neither do we wish to give occasion to any one to entertain any personal animosity towards us. And though there may be many in the profession who have an hostile feeling towards the reform which we advocate, namely, homoeopathy, still there are, we believe, some who, though differ-

VI.

PREFACE.

ing from us in their views, are willing to give us a fair field, and meet us on common ground.

Homoeopathy and allopathy must in their nature ever continue to be antagonistic to each other, and wide as the poles apart ; still we believe that, the present odious distinction which exists between homoeopaths and allopaths is a great evil, and in the meantime to some extent injurious to the public. And for ourselves, we see no good reason why all duly-qualified medical men should not as such, co-operate harmoniously together ; and agree to discuss the relative value of their systems, exclusively on their own merits. In this way the good and the true in medicine would be much sooner known and more generally acted upon • and what is false and injurious, sooner discovered and discarded.

We doubt not but that certain ulterior advantages will accrue to homoeopatliy by a continuation of the present sectarian distinctions, still we would gladly extend the right hand of fellowship to medical men of every creed and persuasion, and under one standard, though with different weapons, agree to do war against a common enemy.

SAMUEL COCKBUKN, M.D.

Dundee January 185G.

Chapter I. Allopathy And Homoeopathy

AUopathy a system of crude dogmas — Shuns investigation — Allopathic intolerance — Liberty of conscience — Necessity of learning before judging — Misrepresentation — Enmity to homoeopathy — Popular faith in allopathy hke that m paganism.

The present state of the world is allowed by all to be one of great enlightenment, and such as demands a thorough revolution in all those fabulous and theoretical systems, which ignorance and self-interest have originated and kept alive. The supporters and advocates of such traditionary systems and practices assume the position and title of being wise, and condemn as silly and foolish everything that opposes their prejudices and inherited opinions. This has been, and still is the case, in regard to the supporters and advocates of the allopathic or orthodox system of medicine.

This system is a thing of the past, a product of the dark ages, and bears on its front the stamp of the

B

SHUNS INVESTIGATION.

times which gave it birth. It shuns the light and cannot stand mvestigation. Its advocates acting as judges, and condemning all who hold an opposite opinion, have assumed the prerogative of infallibility ; and by so doing, put a stop to all improvement. Like the priests in bygone ages, the medical hierarchs have done everything in their power to keep the world in ignorance of the true nature of their system, as a matter in which it had no concern ; and in this they have but too well succeeded. All the other cognate sciences have been, and are still being, presented to the intelligent public in a form in harmony with the intellectual development of the age ; elucidated and explained by more abundant and convincing modes of reasoning and induction ; and supported by more self-evident and palpable facts which have been brought to light by the various discoveries in the arts and sciences. The allopathic system, on the contrary, stereotyped in notions the most obscure and dreamy; in speculations the most fanciful and unreasonable ; in dogmas the most crude and absurd ; is still kept concealed from public gaze in monkish seclusion, as a subject far beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals, which none but those who have been initiated into the mysteries of the profession, and who have obtained the second sight, can at all pretend to understand. This has been the chief ground of condemnation of every false

INTOLERANCE.

system of science and philosophy. Instead of courting investigation, by giving out its doctrines and principles in a clear and plain language, allopathy has all along shunned scrutiny ; everything has been wrapped up in a dark and unmeaning phraseology. And as a proof and consequence of this, there exists at this present time, the most complete and universal ignorance in regard to the principles and doctrines of allopathic medicine among all classes of the community. No lack of knowledge in regard to the practice of the system'; too many have learned this by a dear-bought experience. Those who can boast ignorance on that head are indeed a happy few.

It is a strange anomaly in history, that an individual, after having gone through a regular prescribed course of medical studies under prescribed teachers, and having been declared by a board of examinators to be thoroughly qualified to practice medicine, and having obtained a diploma to that effect, as a guarantee to the public, should yet, after that, be proscribed and branded as a quack and impostor, by the very same parties who gave the diploma; and that merely because the individual had added to his other medical attainments a knowledge of the principles and practice of a new system called homoeopathy, and had so much honesty and candour as to declare his conviction of the superiority of that new system, over the principles and practice of the old or

LIBEHTY OF CONSCIENCE.

allopathic system ; and yet it is true. This fact is in the highest degree humiliating to some of our university corporations and medical associations, and can he accounted for only on the ground that they knew very little about homoeopathy ; or that, actuated by a spirit of intolerance, they imagined that something very decided must he done ex cathedra, in case this new system should ultimately turn the world upside down, and bring their craft in danger.

Every medical man has a right to form an opinion of his own, but before passing judgment on any subject, it is his bounden duty to study the matter thoroughly and impartially- Without such a study, his opinion is a mere expression of his prejudice or ignorance. Allopathists are quite at liberty to differ from us, both in their creed and practice, so are we homoeopathists at liberty to differ from them. We have no desire to force our views on any one, neither will we passively submit to the authoritative dictum of any party that differs from us. We allow to all the liberty we claim to ourselves, and wish to do to others as we wish them to do to us. Let the advocates of the old school come forward and expose homoeopathy to the world. There ought surely to be some among such a large number who should be able to give a full exposure of the system, if it is either a delusion or quackery. One or two of no mean standing in the profession have attempted to do so,

NECESSITY OF LEARNING BEFORE JUDGING. 5 but the sig’ual manner in which they have failed has deterred others from the task. Many who know nothing about homoeopathy, properly speaking, are very decided in their talk against it, and would be very glad to expose it if they were able ; not a few, who know something of the system, have their doubts and misgivings on the subject. They would not like to have their names handed down to posterity as opposing what might after all turn out to be a great truth ; or as defending a system which is avowedly rotten and without foundation. They have their fears that homoeopathy may, on some day not far distant, be so universally known and approved of throughout the world, as to become the ruling system and practice of medicine, and their names, alas I would be associated with dishonour.

Most of us have studied allopathy theoretically and practically for years. How long have any of our opponents studied homoeopathy? Have any of them studied it closely for even one year, or even for six months? Have any of them had any practical experience of the system ? If not, it is the height of presumption to pronounce against it. In coming to the study of homoeopathy, it is not required to give up anything really useful, that has been learned either from experience or tuition ; not at all. The more knowledge the lietter. But by all means come to a thorough understanding of the fundamental

MISREPRESENTATION.

principle of tlie new system, become intimately ac™ cjuainted with the facts and evidences on which it rests. If it is found to be untrue, there will be no difficulty in exposing its fallacy. And if found to be true, hold fast by it, and flinch not from advocating it. Do not condemn the system and abuse its advocates, while ignorant of the true character of both.

There are some medical men who seem to have peculiar notions about the responsibility which lies upon them when they speak about homoeopathy. They spread reports about the system, and give explanations to others as to its nature and its power over disease, which we fear many of them must know, and what all of them ought to know, to be altogether untrue. There are even some, who are known to be men of high moral rectitude in other matters, who, nevertheless, are in the habit of making statements in regard to homoeopathy, which are the very reverse of truth. Their ignorance of the system is not only no cloak to their blameworthiness in this matter, but is an aggravation of it. They ought to take the trouble to learn and know before they speak. Who of our opponents has done this ? Who can lay his hand on his heart and say that he is free from blame in this matter ? Who has overcome the power of self-interest ? Who has resisted the power of custom and prejudice in searching after the truth of homoeopathy ? Let those answer who can. This is

ENMITY TO HOMOEOPATHY". 7

not a subject to be trifled ^ivitb, or lightly laid aside, the health and lives of our fellow-men are at stake, and call aloud for serious, inquiring, and earnest investigation.

There are some men in the profession, the violence of whose opposition to homoeopathy is more of the nature of enmity than anything else. It is they who have raised the cry, “ away with it, away with it.” It is all humbug, quackery, charlatanery, imposture — its advocates are base impostors, and deserve nothing but extinction, root and branch. To such men we have little to say. They have had their analogues in all past ages, and in all timeserving systems. They have been, and still are, blots in society. But the day which shall try us, shall also try them.

As we are always ready to communicate to others what we have learned ourselves, so are we ever ready to receive instruction from those who have it to give ; but kings and popes in medicine we do not acknowledge. That we must think and practice in this or that way merely because a certain party says so, under penalty of confiscation and excommunication, savours too much of the dark ages for us to listen to. We value the right of private judgment and freedom of conscience too highly, to become the slaves or tools of such despotism. Private judgment in the investigation, embracing, and defending of any new truth, is at once the right and privilege of every rational and

POPULAR FAITH IN ALLOPATHY.

intelligent being. And to that tribunal homceopath^ makes its appeal. Every one has a vital interest in the relative merits of the two opposing systems of medicine ; therefore be honest and sincere in investigating the subject. We pretend to no mysterious or secret knowledge, but are guided by plain, simple truth, which we desire others to share with ourselves. Did you ever hear of allopathic doctors inviting the public to investigate the truth of their system of practice? Did you ever hear of any one of them who ever made an attempt to prove the truth of their system ? No, never. They dare not attempt it, because they know full well that it is impossible, and their evident object now is, as it has always been, to keep the public in ignorance by scholastic jargon, making them believe that they know far more than they really do.

The public at this moment are fearfully deluded in regard to allopathy, in imagining that they believe in its truth, when in reality they know nothing about it, and therefore cannot have any intelligent belief in it. Who knows anything about the foundation of the old system of medicine ? Does any one ? Let its advocates give a clear and intelligent statement and explanation of their principles and practices, apart from all mysticism, and thus give the public sufficient data to judge from. At present all such data are wanting, and the adherence to allopathy by the bulk

SPIKIT OF ENQUIRY.

of the public, has no better foundation than that given to paganism or romanism — it is purely of a traditionary character. In an age like this, such should not be the case. Every one should, in this matter, follow the example of the Bereans, and search in the book of facts, and diligently inquire into the volume of reason, to ascertain the truth for himself, no matter what the opinion of others may be. It was by following this course that Galileo discovered that the earth revolved round the sun, and not the sun round the earth. In the same way Columbus discovered America, and in this way Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood, and Jenner the use of vaccination. These and many other great discoverers dared to think for themselves ; they were not content to follow the beaten path of those who had preceded them. They did not believe that whatever their fathers taught and believed must be true. They brought old-established theories to the test of experience— facts, and found them wanting. They proclaimed to the world their own discoveries, and invited men to examine them and test their truth. Each of these in his day suffered much persecution and ridicule. But the storms of ignorance and self-interest have died away, while the truths which they discovered still remain, and we enjoy the benefit of them. So will it be in regard to homoeopathy.

CHAPTEK II.

ALLOPATHY.

Origin of medicine — Medical theories — Allopathy a mixture of old theories— Allopathy made no real progress for 2000 years — Relation between allopathy and the collateral branches of medicine — Allopathic experience— Allopathic specifies — Allopathic palliation — Evils of — Allopathic sheet-anchors — Artificial drug diseases — .Allopathic medicines shorten the duration of life.

The allopathic system of medicine, although upwards of 2000 years old, is very little, if at all understood even among the best informed portion of the community, and with the great mass it is not understood at all. We are however not astonished at this, for besides the studied secrecy and mysticism in wnich that system has been shrouded, it is in itself essentially a confused, unscientific, and contradictory jumble of facts, theories, and assertions, entirely destitute of any settled fundamental principle, by which the incongruous mass can be reduced to order and harmony. In the present chapter we shall endeavour, as briefly and clearly as the nature of the

MEDICAL THEORIES.

subject will admit of, to present the reader with some information on the subject, in order that he may be able to form an intelligent opinion as to its merits.

The practice of medicine in its origin, must have been, in the highest degree, empirical. But man being endowed with a reflective mind, began to form vague speculations about the phenomena which he observed, and hence, at a very early period, medical hypotheses were invented. The first recorded theory is that of Hippocrates, who imagined that the cure of disease was to be effected by the evacuation from the system of certain diseased humours, called the Humoral Theory. Much of this system prevails at the present day, and forms the basis of the physicking doctors. Of these humours there were supposed to be a great variety, to each of which names were given. Galen reduced these to four cardinal humours, namely, blood, bile, pituita, and melancholia, and his theory flourished for a long time. After this, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, Paracelsus appeared, and introduced a great many wild and fanciful notions ; many of which were too grossly absurd to gain anything like universal credit among the profession. Still he succeeded in establishing a chemical theory decidedly opposed to that of his predecessors. The humoral and chemical theories prevailed till the middle of the seventeenth century, when the immortal Harvey discovered the

MEDICAL THEORIES.

circulation of the blood. All diseases were then referred to the energy or fulness of the heart, and upon this the mechanical and hydraulic theories were instituted. About the beginning of the eighteenth centuiy, Dr. Stahl propounded a new theory called Animism^ decidedly opposed to the mechanical theorists. According to this theory all the motions of the body were produced by the rational soul, and diseases were generally regarded as salutary efforts of this presiding principle to avert the destruction of the body. Among the followers of this system were some men of great eminence ; they trusted almost entirely to the power of nature in the cure of disease, using only the most harmless and inert substances. They were the originators of what is now called the expectant system. The celebrated Dr. Sydenham held this notion of nature curing disease. Dr. HojBfman introduced a modification upon this theory ; asserting that all diseases took their rise in the nervous system. Van Swieten, Haller, and others adopted and improved this system. The famous Dr. Boerhaave next introduced a very elaborate theory founded upon the humoral, and modified by the other prevailing notions. The well-known Brown next introduced his theory. General increase of action, or debility in each individual case, was the principle he adopted ; and his practice in every case was either a stimulant or a sedative ; this system met with many

ALLOPATHY A MIXTURE OF OLD THEORIES. 13 supporters. Lastly, the system of Broussais appeared ; he taught that almost all diseases were owing either to an excess or a deficiency of irritability ! bleeding was his chief remedy.

With all these fanciful and conflicting theories, no decided improvement had ever taken place in the practice of medicine. There was no law — no fixed principle which could guide or assist the physician in selecting a remedy to cure disease. In this respect not a single step in advance had taken place from the time of Hippocrates. And it will require very little discrimination to see that, the practice of medicine prevailing in our day though neither entirely according to the one or the other of these theories, is yet nothing more nor less than a disorderly mixture of all of them. We have the humoral theorists with their physic and alteratives — we have followers of Paracelsus and the Alchemists with their powerful minerals and metals — we have the resuscitated doctrine of Animism in the modern expectant, or donothing system, with their bread pills and toast water — we have Brunonians with their artificial stimulants and sedatives — and we have the followers of Broussais with the leech and lancet. Strange, that all these systems though more or less directly opposed to each other should have existence together ; but stranger still that almost every so-called orthodox practitioner in Europe makes a public profession of his faith in

14 ALLOPATHY MADE NO PROGRESS FOR 2000 YEARS.

each and all of these opposing systems by following them in his practice ! This is the reason why the practice of medicine now a days is so complicated and contradictory, being composed of such a jumble of opposing theories.

Intelligent people are astonished to hear it stated that the practice of medicine in the hands of allopaths has made little or no real progress for the last 2000 years. They have heard so much about the discoverie and improvements in and connected with medicine that they have always thought that the practice of medicine had undergone great improvements, and had mightily progressed — that in fact in our day it was in a highly perfected condition. In place of that, when we examine it and compare the practice of to-day with that of Hippocrates, we are inclined to think that the great father of medicine was not far behind any of his disciples. True, medical men have in the course of ages collected a vast mass of details and facts, but being linked together by no law or general principle, this heterogeneous mass is of little or no use to the profession ; at most they can only add fresh material to the vast pile. The science of medicine proper is not to be confounded with the collateral branches. In surgery and the elementary branches of medical education, there have been many and great improvements ; so much so, that at this time their progress is in harmonious keeping with the

ALLOPATHY AND THE COLLATERAL SCIENCES. 15

age we live in. But, while these branches — anatomy, physiology, chemistry, and pathological anatomy have made great and rapid advances, materia medica, (the knowledge of the medicinal properties of drugs,) and therapeutics, (the knowledge of the proper application of medicine in disease,) are wofully deficient ; scarcely any progress at all has been made in these. As regards therapeutics, the progress has been so trifling, and its various parts so discordant, that no one can call it a science at all. And then the material composing the materia medica is so meagre and so devoid of all method, as to render it, comparatively speaking, of little value in the treatment of disease.

Still we are told again that great advancement and progress have been made of late years in various departments of medical science. We remember one day having occasion to defend the claims of homoeopathy against the attack of a clever allopath, and this was one of his objections (quite as appropriate by the way as most others that are generally advanced.) You homoeopathists, said he, have made no great discoveries in medicine, while allopaths have made many : this shews that there are no great men among you. Now waving for the present the fact that homoeopathists have made more real and substantial discoveries in medicine during the past sixty years, than all the medical men that ever lived have done