profession. If they have renounced the errors of Hahnemann's system, they ought not to retain its name, but frankly acknowledge their error and return to rational medicine, of which Hippocrates is regarded as the father.

In 1883 a discussion arose at the Medical Societies of New York on the subject of consultations between 'homoeopathic' and 'orthodox' practitioners. In a paper on this subject contributed to the New York Medical Journal of the 7th of April 1883, Dr. Austin Flint, a highly-respected and well-known physician, and an opponent of 'mixed' consultations, writes:

The objectionable point in the [old]code [of medical ethics] is that which makes ' a practice based on an exclusive dogma' the ground of a refusal to meet practitioners in consultation. This is not a valid objection. Any physician has a right either to originate or adopt an exclusive dogma, however irrational or absurd it may be. Dogmas have prevailed more or less in the past history of medicine. If in a consultation there be lack of agreement respecting either diagnosis or treatment, the code indicates in another article precisely the course to be pursued. The true ground for refusing fellowship in consultations, as in other respects, is a name and an organisation distinct from and opposed to the medical profession. Whenever practitioners assume a distinctive appellation, thereby assuming to represent an essentially distinct system of practice, taking an attitude of antagonism to the regular profession, seeking popular favour on the ground that they belong to a 'new school' based upon truth and productive of good, whereas the regular profession belong to the 'old school,' based on error and productive of harm, how can there be fellowship either in consultation or in other respects ?

In a leading article of the 9th of March 1887, the Medical Press and Circular says:

There is nowhere desire to impose any particular doctrine or mode of treatment; this is left to the conscience and skill of independent practitioners; what we deprecate is, in the language of the Royal College of Physicians, the assumption or acceptance of designations implying the adoption of special modes of treatment.' Homœopaths are not the only, though the most obvious, sinners in this respect.

And again :

They [medical men] must convince the public that their attitude does not arise from any wish to restrict or limit the scope and field of practice, but simply and purely from a dislike for the use of designations which are misleading and contrary to the respect and dignity of the profession.

There is also a journal called the Hospital, which summarises the opinions more lengthily stated above when it says:—

The truth is that so-called 'homœopaths' cut themselves off from the great body of scientific practitioners by a voluntary and useless act of schism. If they were content to be medical men like others, they could practise according to any principle they pleased, and nobody would say a word."

Thus, then, we have at last reached the real battle-ground of to-day. The law of similars' is admittedly to some extent true; to what extent, each practitioner is free to decide for himself as the

6 Hospital, February 12, 1887.

result of his own experience. The question of dosage is also not an article of faith, but a matter to be decided by each one for himself. Even the confining of practice to a special or exclusive method is not universally admitted to be a valid objection, and indeed owns but one leading authority as its supporter. So long as the practitioner does not claim that his rule is the only true therapeutic rule, so long as he does not 'trade upon a name' implying such a claim, or, by the formation of organisations distinct from and opposed to those of the regular profession, take an attitude of antagonism thereto, there is no ground for refusing him the full rights of professional fellowship.

Now let us look back a little into the history of medicine. A therapeutic rule by no means novel, but which had for centuries. remained practically buried, was unearthed as it were by a certain section of the medical profession and proclaimed afresh. That rule was the law of similars,' and the application of it is fitly called 'homœopathy,' and those who use it to any extent are to that extent 'homœopaths.' Its applicability, either partial or universal, was at first flatly denied and pronounced absurd by the mass of the profession; and it therefore not unnaturally came about that those who acknowledged it, independently of the extent of their claim, were dubbed 'homœopaths' by their opponents. They were also, as a matter of history, anathematised and excommunicated, were deprived of their posts in hospitals, of their chairs at universities, of membership of medical societies, and were thus in accordance with a law of nature driven into combination and organisation in self-defence. There was then no question of the ethical aspect as a ground of objection; it was purely and simply a refusal to recognise as professional brethren those whose practice was based to any extent at all upon the despised 'law of similars.' On that ground Dr. Rapp, Professor of Pathology and Therapeutics in the University of Tübingen, was dismissed from his chair; Dr. Keith was removed from the staff of the Aberdeen Infirmary; while virulent but unsuccessful attempts were made to deprive Dr. Henderson of his post as Professor of Pathology at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr. Tessier of his staff appointment in the Paris hospitals.

Moreover, to show that the present ground of objection is a complete change of front, I would point out that the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association-the progenitor of the present British Medical Association-passed in 1851, at Brighton, under the presidency of Dr. Horner of Hull (who, by the way, was a few years later deprived of his post in the Hull Infirmary and struck off the list of Vice-Presidents of the Association for becoming a 'homœopath'), resolutions stating that professional intercourse with 'homoeopaths ' was 'derogatory to the honour of members of the Association.' It then defined

that there are three classes of practitioners who ought not to be members of this association, viz. 1st, Real homoeopathic practitioners; 2nd, Those who practise homœopathy in combination with other systems of treatment; 3rd, Those who, under various pretences, meet in consultation, or hold professional intercourse with those who practise homœopathy.

The second of these classes clearly ostracises even those who acknowledge only a partial application of the law of similars,' while the third enunciates a course of bigotry and intolerance which I believe it was reserved for the year 1887, in spite of the much wider views we now hold, to attempt to put into action.

Now I am free to admit that had the separation originated as a consequence of the antagonistic organisations, instead of, as in point of fact, vice versa, no condemnation could have been too strong for those who thus wantonly destroyed the unity of the profession. But in the face of the facts I have just related, I would ask 'Ought we to complain, can we even be surprised, at the existence of a sectarian designation or of independent organisations?'

It may be objected that with reference to the differences of opinion above alluded to concerning the merits and extent of application of antiseptic surgery,' there are no Listerian hospitals or societies, no men who dub themselves or permit themselves to be dubbed Listerians or Antiseptists. Granted; but are we so certain there would not have been if Lister had been deprived of his chair at Edinburgh, and if those who did not believe in or use his method had cast out those who did from their societies, dismissed them from their posts in hospitals, and refused to hold any professional intercourse with them whatever?

And how stands the case now? Is there any justification, any excuse, for the maintenance of a designation, of special organisations, at the present time? We are told that if those whose practice is more or less based upon the law of similars' will only abstain from calling themselves homœopaths,' give up their special organisations, directories, and societies, and dismantle their hospitals, the hand of professional fellowship shall be once more extended to them. Individuals have tried it, and with what result? Why, that they are immediately accused of dishonourable conduct. Call yourself a homœopath and you are trading on a name' that is derogatory to the profession. Do not call yourself one, and you are sailing under false colours. 'Heads I win, tails you lose!'

What was the case with Dr. Kidd at the deathbed of Lord Beaconsfield? He had, I believe, discarded the appellation of homœopath,' and removed his name from the homoeopathic directory, and he notoriously did not admit the universal application of the law of similars' nor the necessity for infinitesimal dosage. Yet Sir William Jenner felt it his duty to refuse to meet him, and Dr. Quain only felt

justified in so doing when armed with a special dispensation from the Royal College of Physicians!

Again, in the case of the institution with a reference to which I commenced this article, while the incriminated members certainly did offend by being connected with 'homoeopathic' institutions, and figuring in the homoeopathic' directory, the whole spirit of the complaint lay in the fact that their practice was at any rate to some extent based upon the application of the law of similars,' a law which is admitted (Dr. Lauder Brunton tells us) as of partial application by the ordinary practitioner, and about which the only dispute is to what extent it applies—a question of infinity, and one only to be determined by the possession of infinite knowledge. In evidence of this statement let me adduce facts.

In a circular addressed to the governors, the executive committee state that they have called upon the offending members not merely 'to remove their names from the homoeopathic register' and 'to resign any appointment they may hold at any homoeopathic institution,' but also 'to desist from the said practice [of homoeopathy] in future.'

In a letter addressed by six members of the medical staff to the chairman of the executive committee they consider the fact that for some time past patients of the infirmary have been treated homœopathically' renders it 'highly desirable that an inquiry should be made into the matter.'

In a further circular addressed by a section of the executive committee to the governors, a complaint is made of 'the introduction of homoeopathy as a method of practice by certain members of the medical staff,' which will induce 'a large majority of the medical staff to resign if such practice be continued.'

The resolution moved at the meeting of governors (the rejection of which resulted in the resignation of seven of the medical staff) calls upon the offenders, among other things, to cease from practising homœopathy.' I fail to see any compliance in these acts with the absence of any desire to fetter members of the profession in the theories of medical practice they may adopt.

7

The present writer, who happened at the time to be on the medical staff of another hospital, applied for and was appointed to one of the vacancies created by the resignations referred to above. Whereupon a committee meeting was called at the other institution and a resolution was passed in these terms:

-

That no member of the staff of the Queen's Jubilee Hospital be connected with a homoeopathic establishment, or with any institution in which homoeopathy is either a recognised or an optional mode of treating the sick, or at which avowed or known homœopathists are office-holders.

On the strength of this resolution the writer was called on to resign, and refusing to do so was suspended; the subsequent events Resolution of the Royal College of Physicians of London, December 27, 1881. VOL. XXIII.-No. 132.

T

are on record in the Law Reports and the columns of the Times for December 1887 and January 1888.

Surely this case was the reductio ad absurdum of anti-homœopathic bigotry and intolerance. The writer did not acknowledge the homœopathic law as being one of general application any more than would Dr. Brunton or Dr. Ringer, yet, because he even chose to associate on the staff of a charitable institution with homoeopaths, it was attempted to extend the boycotting principle to him.

In the face of evidence such as this, is it to be wondered at that the so-called 'homoeopaths ' hesitate to respond to the invitation to disorganise themselves, or to hasten with rapturous enthusiasm to frankly acknowledge their error and return to rational medicine, of which Hippocrates is regarded as the father'? What amount of credence can they place in the promises that are held out to them that if they disband their own organisations, dismantle their own special hospitals, discard their special designation and directories, they will once more be restored to full professional fellowship, or stand upon their individual merits when seeking public appointments?

To summarise: Objections to professional intercourse between the majority of the profession and so-called 'homœopaths' have been based on the following grounds :

I. Their special method of treatment depends upon a rule which is an axiomatic absurdity.

II. They are essentially bound to a reductio ad absurdum in the question of dosage.

III. They claim an exclusive possession of the only true rule of practice.

IV. They trade upon a separatist designation, and form societies. and organisations distinct from and opposed to those of the regular profession, and are thus the originators of a schism.

On the first two of these grounds it is alleged that professional intercourse must be futile; on the last, two that it is derogatory. In reply I have attempted to show

I. That the great authorities amongst the majority admit and prove the said rule not to be an axiomatic absurdity, but to some extent true; and that a mere difference of opinion as to the extent of its application does not destroy the possibility of an harmonious consultation.

II. That the reductio ad absurdum of dosage is not essential, and consequently cannot be a valid reason for ostracising homoeopaths en masse; and, being a question of degree and not of kind, is always open to adjustment.

III. That the so-called homœopaths do not in theory claim possession of the only true rule of therapeutics, and do not in practice discard other methods, rules, and auxiliaries. That the exclusiveness, if exclusiveness there be, lies with those who practically admit every