Allopathy and Homoeopathy Before the Judgement of Common Sense! - Frederick Hiller (best novels of all time .TXT) 📗
- Author: Frederick Hiller
- Performer: -
Book online «Allopathy and Homoeopathy Before the Judgement of Common Sense! - Frederick Hiller (best novels of all time .TXT) 📗». Author Frederick Hiller
In conclusion, I will give a few statistics, from different and reliable authorities; but first, the testimony of Dr. Routh, an eminent Allopathic physician of London, given under circumstances which make it significant and interesting.
In 1852, Dr. Routh published in London a book which he entitled the "Fallacies of Homœopathy," which he says he was constrained to do, because
"This system of medical practice has of late unfortunately made, and continues to make, such progress in this country, and the metropolis in particular, and is daily extending its influence even among the most learned, and those whose high positions in society gives them no little moral power over the opinions of the multitude, that our profession is, I think, bound to make it the subject of inquiry and investigation."
To that end, he collected statistics of different hospitals, to the number of thirty-two thousand six hundred and fifty cases, treated in homœopathic hospitals, and compared them with an equal number of cases from old-school hospitals. He was astonished to find that the average mortality under allopathic treatment was 10.5 per c.; while under homœopathic treatment it was only 4.4 per c. Still he was honest enough to publish the results. He further states that, proportionally to the number of beds, in homœopathic hospitals there are twice as many patients admitted and cured, as in allopathic hospitals.
He also states that the mean duration of treatment in pneumonia was
Homœopathic, 11-2/3 days.
Allopathic, 29 days.
After visiting Vienna, Dr. Routh gives the following statistics of cases of inflammation of the lungs, treated respectively in the Homœopathic and Allopathic Hospitals of that city.
Allopathic mortality 23 per c.
Homœopathic mortality 5 per c.
Here, then, is allopathic testimony, the most conclusive; that, in this fatal disease, the old system involves a mortality of 23 per c., while that of Homœopathy is only 5 per c.—just about one-fifth!
I have in my possession, and could adduce here, numerous equally valuable statistics, but as I have already trespassed upon your time, I will sum up the whole in a carefully prepared table of several life insurance companies which have investigated the influence of medical treatment as affecting human life, and from which they feel authorized in offering an annual reduction of 15 per c. to practical homœopathists. We find the "Atlantic Mutual" making the following deductions:
First. "That practical Homœopathists enjoy more robust health."
Second. "That they are less frequently attacked by disease."
Third. "When attacked, they recover more rapidly than those treated by any other system."
Fourth. "That the mortality in the more fatal forms of disease is small compared with that under Allopathic treatment."
Fifth. "That many diseases, which are incurable under any other system, are curable under Homœopathic treatment."
This statement is followed by a general summary from carefully prepared tables, comprising a large mass of statistics, collected from all parts of the world, and embracing the records of the treatment of some 300,000 cases of disease. We find that the ratio of mortality between Homœopathic and Allopathic treatment, omitting the fractions, to be,—
In General diseases as 4 to 13
" Cholera, as 16 to 49
" Typhus fever, as 8 to 33
" Yellow fever, as 5 to 43
" Pneumonia, as 5 to 31
The general average of all diseases being as 8 to 34, while the average length of sickness under the two systems, is as 2 to 3, a clear gain of over fifty per c. is shown in favor of Homœopathy.
The inquiry will here naturally arise:—Why is it that, if the Homœopathic system presents such superior results, that it has not been adopted by the profession generally? While its adherents may with pride refer to its rapid growth in this country, its practitioners having increased from 6 in 1830 to over 6,000 in 1871; yet, if the system is all that its adherents claim, why should it still meet with the most bitter opposition of the old school, instead of that hearty acceptance which its merits would seem to demand?
Before answering this question, let us see how the medical profession, and professors of other branches of science have received the several great discoveries of the last four hundred years.
Copernicus, who taught that the sun is stationary; that the planets revolve around the sun, and that the apparent revolution of the heavens is caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis,—a system now generally received and acknowledged, was persecuted nearly to death. I found, only twenty years ago, a sect of people in Wisconsin, who still disbelieved this great fact, that the earth moves around the sun.
Gallileo, after being converted to the Copernican theory of the revolution of the earth around the sun, and after having improved the telescope of Copernicus, invited his fellow-professors to make these observations with him. They absolutely refused to even look through Gallileo's telescope, and after he had demonstrated to them by actual experiment, that the trifling difference in the falling of two unequal weights is owing only to the resistance of the air, and after making the experiment twice before the eyes of his opposers in dropping two unequal weights from the tower of Pisa, they did not believe it. He also was persecuted through life.
Franklin's electric experiments were received in like manner. After they had been read before the Royal Society, they were considered worthless, and he earned nothing but ridicule and abuse.
So it was with Fulton, when he was moving upon the Hudson River with his imperfect steamcraft before the eyes of the people; they said it was impossible, and could not be done. Yes, they denied the fact, and declared him insane after he had done it.
Harvey, who discovered and taught that there is an arterial circulation of blood through the human system, was persecuted through life, his professional enemies styling him the "Circulator," a word, in its original Latin, synifying vagabond or quack.
In the light of these facts, it was not surprising that Hahnemann, after the promulgation of his doctrine, meets the same fate, and from that day to the present, the most bitter denunciations have been poured by the Old School, not only upon him, but on all who have adopted, or have investigated his method.
But Time ever rectifies the mistakes of mankind. The value of the discoveries of all these great men has long since been acknowledged by the world; and the day will and must surely arrive, when the little acorn of Truth, planted by Hahnemann, which has already taken deep root, and is lifting high its vigorous stem, shall tower far above all other giants of the medical forest, and its wide-spreading branches cast their beneficent shadows over the whole earth.
F. HILLER, M. D.
San Francisco, April 10th, 1872.
"Homœopathy and Regular Medicine."The editor of the Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal (old school) had a sudden spasm of good sense—a condition none too frequent with our Allopathic brethren, and during the attack, allowed the following communication to appear in the pages of his journal.
To the Editor of the Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal:
It will be to the advantage of the regular medical profession to go carefully over their treatment of the class of physicians who have seen fit to denominate themselves homœopathic, and to observe the effect such treatment has had upon the profession itself, upon the public and upon homœopathy.
That the accumulated experience of faithful observers, who, for the last four thousand years have given their lives to the study and treatment of diseases, is, we believe, of almost invaluable importance to one who wishes to become a physician, and certainly is of infinite importance when compared with a hypothetical dogma, and yet, with all the machinery of our hospitals and dispensaries, the control of every medical appointment in the gift of governments or corporations, with our medical schools perfectly equipped with professors for every separate department of medicine, and an entire monopoly of the advantages of clinical observations, with all these advantages and precedents, what headway have we made in convincing the public and individuals of our superior ability to manage disease, or of our peculiar fitness for becoming the sanitary officers of households or communities?
The line of treatment which the regular profession saw fit to adopt in the earliest days of homœopathy, and which they are still following, is generally bigoted, and universally intolerant opposition. What is the effect of this opposition? It is to arouse in the public mind that generous American sentiment which ever asserts itself to see fair play between a big boy and a little one. There is scarcely an instance in which the regular profession, with all its accumulated prestige, has arrayed itself against homœopathy, where the weaker party have not prevailed. And to-day, in the sight of the law, and in the confidence of the people, homœopathy is the peer of regular medicine.
It becomes us to go over this case, and, if possible, discover why, we so strong in numbers, and in all the facilities and appliances for illustrating and inforcing our tenets, are so repeatedly beaten? Why is it that individuals and corporations are becoming convinced that their interests require them to employ homœopathic in preference to regular physicians? For myself, in spite of the logic of events, I still believe, and my belief is founded upon a thorough investigation of the principles of homœopathy, and observations upon the practice of many of its most distinguished disciples, that in no way can a man so efficiently equip himself for the responsibility of the management of disease, and the custody of health as in the study of regular medicine.
If we take it for granted that the past experience and observations of physicians are of service to physicians at present, and I do not think we will be charged with assumption for considering this an axiom; then why is it that a sect which disregards all traditions of medicine, and found their system upon a dogma which contradicts all that we have held as truth, why is it that they are flourishing and we are going to the wall?
The answer to this question presents itself to my mind under two heads, which may be formularized as follows: Homœopathy lives upon the disgrace brought upon the profession of medicine by the low standard of medical education, and flourishes upon the intolerant opposition it has received at the hands of regular physicians.
It is with the second, the lesser of the two evils I propose to deal at this time.
The treatment of homœopathy by the regular profession in past years is so well known as to require no mention, therefore let us turn our attention to the present, and by reading its signs in the light of the past, endeavor to do something for our future.
The position of the regular profession in regard to homœopathy may be expressed in a few words. We are not aware of their existence. They have no professional rights which we are bound to respect, and when forced by some laymen to speak upon the subject, or give an opinion upon homœopathy, the opinion is that it is a "humbug." This line of treatment was bad enough when homœopathy was young, but now when we stand on equal footing before the law, and nearly equal before the public, it is suicidal.
It may be well to explain what I mean by equal rights before the law. All the rights which members of the regular profession of this State enjoy are granted them by Acts of Legislature, the first of which was passed April 10th, 1813, this and the Act of 1827, contain the "Regulations concerning the Practice of Physic and Surgery in this State." They provide for the establishment of County Medical Societies, "the only organization existing under law for the purpose of diffusing true
Comments (0)