Physician and patient : $b or, a practical view of the mutual duties, relations and interests of the medical profession and the communityHooker, Worthington
Science
Physician and patient : $b or, a practical view of the mutual duties, relations and interests of the medical profession and the community
Hooker, Worthington
Medical ethics; Physician and patient; Physicians; Quacks and quackery
I need not dwell longer upon the proofs of the fact, that the
comparative success of different physicians, and different modes of
practice, is not easily discovered by the public, nor even always
by the scientific observer. Before I proceed to show why such a
difficulty exists in regard to this point, it is best that the reader
should understand distinctly what I mean by good and bad practice.
I do not mean by good practice, the use of remedies which are
essentially good, that is, beneficial in all cases; nor by bad
practice, the use of remedies which are essentially bad, that is,
injurious in all cases. There are no such medicines. Thompsonians
claim that there are—that cayenne, lobelia, &c., are always
beneficial, while calomel, opium. &c., are always deleterious. And
this view of the subject is not confined to Thompsonians. There is a
strong tendency to this exclusive notion in regard to remedies and
systems of practice abroad in the community, and it is occasionally
witnessed even in members of the medical profession.
If it were true, that some one system of remedies and doctrines is
wholly good, while all others are bad, it would be very easy for the
community to decide between what is good, and what is bad practice in
medicine. It would only have to watch, and whatever it saw uniformly
doing harm reject, and whatever it saw uniformly doing good retain.
But the subject is not thus simplified. There are some good points
in every system of practice. However bad it may be on the whole, it
will do some good in some cases. For example, the Thompsonian system,
though it is bad as a system, inasmuch as it is injurious, often
destructive in its results as applied indiscriminately to all cases,
yet sometimes does good, and very often in the same case does at
one stage of it good, and at another harm. Thus an attack of fever,
especially if it depend upon a disordered stomach, may be broken up
by an emetic of lobelia. Though commonly some other emetic would do
it better, yet there is no question that in such a case the lobelia
ordinarily does well. Now, after this is done, if the case were
left to itself with rest and a simple diet, the cure would soon be
completed. But the Thompsonian often undoes in part, and sometimes
wholly, the good which he has done. By his heating remedies he
induces a slight fever, with a morbid state of the mucous membrane of
the stomach, indicated by a bad tongue, red, or furred, or both; and
he thus makes a lingering case of one which should have been a short
one, and perhaps creates slow disease, of which the patient may never
get rid by any treatment.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account