Tracts on Homœopathy.-No. 8.

THE CONTROVERSY

ON

HOMEOPATH Y.

BY WILLIAM SHARP, M.D., F.R.S.

Second Chansand.

LONDON:

AYLOTT AND CO., 8, PATERNOSTER ROW; MANCHESTER: H. TURNER, 41, PICCADILLY.

-

1853.

Price Twopence.

"The mind which is searching for truth ought to remain in a state of suspense, until superior evidence on one side or the other incline the balance of the judgment, and determine the probability or certainty to the one side."

WATTS.

THE CONTROVERSY ON HOMEOPATHY.

"Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.

LORD BACCN.

WE are censured by our medical brethren of the old school for bringing professional discussions before the tribunal of the public, because, it is said, the public are incompetent judges of such matters. Some of our own party are disposed to join in this censure, and we are all ready to admit that, in the present condition of medicine, an appeal to the public is in itself an evil.

But it must be observed that this evil did not originate with the homoeopathists. HAHNEMANN did not take this step; he published his first Essay in HUFELAND'S Journal, a periodical strictly professional, and of the highest character and standing in the profession. The step was taken by the physicians of the old school, and at the very commencement of the discussion; for instead of meeting HAHNEMANN, on their common ground, with arguments and facts wherewith to refute his opinions, they appealed to the public authorities, and by the aid of this unprofessional force drove him from city to city, and from village to village. And, moreover, this appeal to the public by the allopathic portion of the profession has been continued to the present hour, and is still continued. Occasions are eagerly sought on which to call for the inquest of the Coroner, in the hope of committing the homoeopathist to prison, a hope which has once been realised; and what are the resolutions so frequently passed at public meetings of medical men, and published in the newspapers, declaring that they will not recognise and cannot hold communion with homoeopathic practitioners, whom they stigmatise as quacks, knaves, and fools, but an appeal to the public to aid them in their endeavours to suppress the unwelcome novelty?

If then there be folly in bringing this matter before the public, the folly rests with the old school, not with the new; it is plain that homoeopathists have no alternative; the affair is already before the public; it has been carried there by their opponents;

they are compelled, however reluctantly, to plead the cause of Homœopathy before this tribunal. It is true indeed that they do this, without fear, though reluctantly, not doubting that when magistrates are better acquainted with its truth and value they will no longer expel it from their borders or imprison it in their gaols; nor that the public, when well informed upon the question, will fail to come to a satisfactory and wise conclusion.

Another justification of the course pursued by homoeopathists arises out of the fact that every allopathic medical journal is closed to any paper containing an argument or a fact in favour of Homœopathy. Many medical men are not only deaf to their intreaties to investigate the new science, but, as is most evident, resolved if possible to crush it. They have imbibed a settled hatred of the whole subject, and will never study it unless compelled by their patients to do so.

It may be observed further that though this public discussion of medical matters be an evil, good will come out of it. The veil of mystery which has hitherto shrouded medicine will be removed; the elements of the science will be expressed in plain and intelligible terms; unprofessional men will inform themselves more fully on these subjects than they have been wont to do; and the result will be, not that every man will be his own physician, for that is neither desirable nor possible, but that it will be in the power of every one to possess such knowledge, and to have such an intelligent appreciation of the subject, as will enable him to chuse his medical advisers for better reasons than those by which he has heretofore been guided.

And again it may be remarked that if medicine be really a science, there is no reason why every educated person may not understand its principles as he ought to know the principles of Chemistry, of Astronomy, of Agriculture, of Mechanics, or of any other branch of natural knowledge.

Entertaining these views, I conceive myself justified in laying the whole case of Homoeopathy, without reserve, before the profession if they will look at it, and if they will not, before the public; the interests of the latter being even more concerned in it than those of the former. It seems to me desirable that the matter should be clearly explained in the simplest manner possible. is the object of these Tracts. In this number I purpose to point out the present aspect of what may be called the external features of the controversy. This will be accomplished by the discussion of the four following arguments;

III. From the majority.
IV. From improbability.

Such

I. From authority. II. From antiquity. I. The argument from authority. This argument on the side of Allopathy may be thus stated ;-various Universities, as the four in Scotland; several Royal Colleges, as those of the Physicians of

London and of Edinburgh; and many other public bodies have pronounced their condemnation of Homoeopathy in the strongest manner. They have rejected students and applicants for their degrees and diplomas, and have passed resolutions forbidding their members to hold any professional intercourse with those who adopt the new system of medicine.

As illustrations of these proceedings I give the following; first the letter written by the President of the Royal College of Physicians of London, in reply to an application for its license, made by a homoeopathic practitioner.

“ SIR,—The foundation of the Royal College of Physicians was for the purpose of guaranteeing to the public skilful and safe practitioners.

The College of Physicians regards the so called Homœopathists as neither skilful nor safe.

Therefore the College cannot, without betraying a sacred trust, give its license to persons whom they regard as wholly unworthy their confidence, and with whom it is not possible they can hold any communion.

I remain, &c.,

JOHN AYRTON PARIS."

And, secondly, the Declaration of the Court of Examiners of the Society of Apothecaries in London, the only public body authorised by act of Parliament, to give a legal qualification to practice medicine in England, namely, that

"In their capacity of Examiners they will refuse their Certificate to any candidate who professes, during his examination, to found his practice on what are called Homœopathic principles."

As this Declaration was made about two years ago, I thought it well to learn whether the Society of Apothecaries, which, perhaps it should be observed, is a mercantile company selling drugs, still adheres to its resolution. This I have ascertained by the following reply to a letter of enquiry addressed to their Secretary, which I received on the 28th of October, 1853.

66

SIR,-The Court of Examiners still refuses to admit any person who calls himself a Homœopathist.

I am, Sir, your's &c.,

H. BLATCH, Secretary." Thus Homoeopathy is put down with a high hand by the Medical Authorities of Great Britain; and in this they are only following the course pursued from the beginning by the similar Authorities of Germany. It is well known that HAHNEMANN himself was expelled from Leipzic, and from several other places, on attempting to practice after his newly discovered method. This opposition still survives, for, only a few months ago, an able practitioner, DR. KALLENBACH, who had been invited to Frankfort on the Maine by a number of distinguished citizens, was summarily expelled by the Authorities from that free town.

Such is the view of the argument on the side adverse to the new method;-Homoeopathy is denounced by Authority.