Then there is a hurtful disposition to fraternize. In the good old days the regular profession ostracized him who consulted with that horrid bugaboo, the homeopath. It has come to pass that the regular lion has laid him down beside the homeopathic lamb. And when they rise again the mutton shall be no more, and the lion shall have waxed fat. The latter-day regular has gone farther, and hobnobbed, as on equal terms, with “osteopaths,” “Christian Scientists,” “faith healers,” and others of their ilk. Not so? Oh, yes it is. It is not long since the Physicians’ Club of Chicago invited representatives of these creeds to break bread with it, and formally discuss the merits and demerits of their theories as opposed to regular medicine. The affair was given great publicity in the newspapers, and the wise layman, reading thereof, laughed exceedingly merry and said, “What fools these doctors be.” And, from a business, politic and social standpoint, were they really so very clever? The Physicians’ Club gave these people standing in the public eye, and by inviting them to a joint discussion, gave them professional recognition—a recognition they were not slow to use as a valuable advertisement. If a dinner invitation does not constitute social recognition, what does? This action of the Physicians’ Club did more to further the interests of these people than they themselves could have done in a year. Still, mistakes will happen, and the worst that can be said of the club is that it made a serious, impolitic and unbusiness-like blunder. 192It is much easier to direct attention to faults than it is to suggest remedies therefor. In most of the points here made, the remedy suggests itself. In general, the remedy lies in an improvement of professional esprit de corps. With a betterment of this as a foundation, much can be done to improve the business aspect of medicine in its higher sense. The time will come when professional co-operation in the broadest sense will be absolutely necessary if we would survive. A little of the proper spirit of trades unionism might not be a bad thing. So far as the strictly financial aspect of legitimate practice is concerned, the sooner we impress the public with the idea that we appreciate our own market value and insist on its appreciation by the public, the better it will be for the profession. Once let it be understood that ours is a business-like and financially sound profession, and the hoi polloi will give us the respect that is our due. The public should have frequent and pointed reminders that there is more than a philanthropic side to our labors. The doctor’s wife and children deserve quite as much consideration as the layman’s. “I know that the world, the great big world, From the peasant up to the king, Has a different tale from the tale I tell, And a different song to sing. But for me—and I care not a single fig If they say I am wrong or right—