er Dernery
1615753
M81
8477151
DEC 11 1908
Compliments of the Author.
14615.53
M 81
The Continuance of
Homœopathy as a Distinctive
School of Medicine
BY
J. HERBERT MOORE, M. D.,
Brookline, Mass.
(READ BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY,
OCTOBER 18, 1904.)
Reprinted from "The Hahnemannian Monthly," March, 1905.
13 hlee
oq rac
THE CONTINUANCE OF HOMEOPATHY AS A DISTINCTIVE SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE.
BY J. HERBERT MOORE, M. D., BROOKLINE, MASS.
(Read before the Maryland State Homeopathic Medical Society. October 18th, 1904.)
MR. PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY:
It is with genuine pleasure that I accept your very kind in-
vitation to address the Maryland State Homœopathic Medical
Society upon this occasion of its semi-annual meeting, enabling
me, as it does, to speak with as well as to you, its members.
In the selection of my subject I have been guided by your
worthy President's request, and I shall speak to you this even-
ing upon the theme: "The Continuance of Homœopathy as a
Distinctive School of Medicine." While consenting to do so
1 am mindful of the masterful presentation of your President's
address along these lines to your society last May, and it is
only in compliance with such request that I presume to glean
in the field in which he has so ably reaped.
In the consideration of this subject I shall attempt to show
why such a continuance is not only justifiable on account of the
attitude of the old school of medicine toward homoeopathy
and its practitioners, but is necessary for the best good of those
principles and tenets for which homoeopathy stands.
In judging the attitude of old school medicine toward hom-
œopathy and its practitioners we must distinguish between in-
dividual and collective cases. So far as individual cases are
concerned a great difference will be found in different parts
of the country, and even in different communities of
the same part of the country, dependent here upon
some special environment, as for instance a a hospital
in which both old school and
old school and homoeopathic physi-
cians equally and harmoniously work. There can be no
question but what, generally speaking, there exists in the West
a better understanding between individual members of the two
schools than in the East; and in both West and East we are
pleased to note that many practitioners of both schools can sin-
cerely claim members of the other medical camp among their
professional friends. But as this is a country in which ma-
jorities rule, the verdict of the attitude of old school medicine
toward homoeopathy must be rendered in accordance with the
attitude of those collective cases making up their different so-
cieties and their national association.
A candid, yet perfectly fair, summing up of an examination
into this attitude reveals the fact that there are three slogans
which have been invariably uttered by official old school medi-
cine, whenever it has considered anything pertaining to hom-
œopathy or its practitioners, and these are: regular, dogma,
and sectarian; regular as applied to themselves, and dogma and
sectarian as applied to us. The fact is at the same time re-
vealed that these slogans have never rallied to the detriment of
homœopathy, but have invariably proved a war-cry merely
serving to deafen their own ears and to dull their own under-
standing against a recognition, or even a realization, of the le-
gitimate claims of homoeopathy, and to turn them away from
any investigation of these claims, or even a desire for the same,
in any degree of fairness or liberality.
Although these are positive statements I wish it to be thor-
oughly understood, at the outset, that they are uttered in not
the slightest partisan spirit so far as the objectionable signifi-
cance of this term is concerned, nor with any desire or intent
that they widen in the least the long-standing breach which, at
the present time, seems to be gradually closing up between the
dominant schools of medicine. Rather are they uttered for the
purpose that our treatment of this healing process may be suffi-
ciently intelligent and healthy, as that the ultimate closing up
of the same may be that of an ethically even and perfect union.
The revision of its code of ethics by the American Medical
Association at its annual meeting held in 1903, resulting in the
substitution of the "Principles of Medical Ethics of the Ameri-
can Medical Association," is naturally of interest to the hom-
œopathic school of medicine, and especially so as regards that
section relating to the action taken concerning its ethical re-
lations with the other dominant school of medicine.
In order to appreciate the real significance of this revision let
us turn to their code of ethics in force up to their meeting of
last year. This code, as you all know, was adopted in the year
1847, and we find in section 4, paragraph 1, that portion re-
lating to their position concerning ethical relations with physi-
2
cians not of their kind. In this section, after stating that a
regular medical education should constitute the only acknowl-
edged right of a physician to the exercise and honors of his
profession, it goes on to state: "But no one can be considered
as a regular practitioner, or a fit associate in consultation, whose
practice is based on an exclusive dogma, to the rejection of the
accumulated experience of the profession, and of the aids ac-
tually furnished by anatomy, physiology, pathology and or-
ganic chemistry." You will notice the emphasis given in this
code to the first two expressions of regular and dogma to
which I have referred.
The State has stepped in and defined by its courts of law
that which constitutes a regular physician, thus eliminating
any efficient claim upon this title by the old school of medicine,
and in fact eliminating all claim to its self-styled title of regu-
lar save on the ground of self-sufficient egotism. We trust that
it is its appreciation of these facts which has led the old school
of medicine to omit this term of regular from their new prin-
ciples of ethics. If so we sincerely congratulate them upon
their refusal to longer claim a monopoly of this meaningless
term when applied exclusively to either school.
The old school could and would be as sincerely congratulated
if it would bring itself to discard the equally meaningless des-
ignation of dogma in their official and individual references
to us; the significance of which so often appears under the term
of sectarian system of medicine, an expression as meaningless
as the two other expressions of regular and dogma when ap-
plied to the homoeopathic school of medicine.
It is not my purpose to take up your time to-night by an
analysis of this old code which has been questioned so many
times and so ably by our own practitioners of the past, nor to
follow along the history of the working of this section of their
code during these many years, showing how far it has missed
the mark of injuring homœopathy and its practitioners in the
eyes of the public which was the real purpose of its adoption.
Neither is it my purpose to demonstrate to what an extent their
realization of this miscarrying of the purpose of the old code,
or the moral pressure which the fair-minded public have
brought to bear upon them, or yet again to what an extent the
matter of expediency on the part of their own physicians, has
actuated their change of attitude toward consultations with
homœopathic physicians; motives which it is impossible for us
not to recognize when we consider that neither fellowship
3
nor recognition goes hand in hand with the passive removal of
the barriers against consultations as we find it implied in the
following generalities contained in Article 3 of Chapter 2 of
their new "Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medi-
cal Association" under the caption of "The Duties of Physi-
cians in Regard to Consultations," and which read as follows:
Section 1. "The broadest dictates of humanity should be obeyed
by physicians whenever and wherever their services are needed
to meet the emergencies of disease or accident." Section 2,
"Consultations should be promoted in difficult cases, as they
contribute to confidence and more enlarged views of practice."
Whatever their motives may have been which led up to their
excluding the ancient barrier against consultations from their
new principles of ethics, or the method thereof, the rights of
the public so prominently figure in this matter that the import-
ance of mutual consultations among all reputable physicians
is too great for us to withhold our concurrence, in the re-
sult obtained, on account of our questioning either motive or
method. Consequently we unhesitatingly add our seal of ap-
proval to this action of the American Medical Association so
far as it tends toward mutual consultations among all reputable
physicians, and recognize in it a long stride in the right direc-
tion.
But when it comes to a question involving the vitality and
perhaps the very life of all that for which homœopathy stands,
and you know that I now refer to the matter of amalgamation
with the old school of medicine, ours is not only the right but
the duty to thoroughly understand the motives which old
school medicine has in treating with us concerning consulta-
tions, amalgamation, or any other matter, and to understand
not only its present attitude toward homoeopathy and homœo-
pathic practitioners but what its attitude would be after such
amalgamation had been consummated.
We look in vain to these new principles of ethics for any in-
formation as to what this attitude of old school medicine should
or will be, and we find beyond the mere dropping of the old
anti-consultation section no further reversal of the long-estab-
lished position of its national association concerning ethical
relations with homoeopathic practitioners, inasmuch as the
American Medical Association has left to the state associa-
tions all matters relating to these relations. This action we
find expressed as follows, in the explanatory preface of the new
principles of ethics contained in the accepted report of the
4
special committee to whom the revision of the old code was re-
ferred: "The committee, for this reason, (the resemblance
which the relation of the American Medical Association to its
constituent state associations bears to the relation of the United
States to the several states) regards it as wiser to formu-
late the principles of medical ethics, without definite reference
to 'code' or penalties, thus leaving its several states to form
such code, and establish such rules as they may regard to be
fitting and proper, for regulating the professional conduct of
their members, providing of course, that in doing so there shall
be no infringement on the established ethical principles of this
Association."
It is evident from this action that we are to look to the vari-
ous state associations, if we would ascertain the ethical atti-
tude of official old school medicine toward homoeopathy and
its practitioners.
The verdict of these state associations does not promise to
be reassuring. For instance, the Council of the New York
State Medical Association prepared and approved a revision of
the old national code, and instructed its delegates to present it
to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association
at the Saratoga session of 1902, as their embodiment of what
the national association should adopt as its revised code of
ethics. In Chapter 2, Article 4, of this proposed revision,
under the caption "Of the Duties of Physicians in regard to
Consultations," we find the sections relating to consultations
and other ethical relations with physicians not of their kind to
read as follows: (Sections 1 and 4 read the same as the two
sections contained in the new principles of ethics and which I
read to you above.) Section 2, "The good of the patient being
the sole object in view, any physician having a license to prac-
tice medicine conferred by a medical board authorized by the
state may be aided in consultation." Section 3, (and this is the
section to which I want to especially call your attention as con-
taining the old familiar designation and the penalty attached
thereto), "No physician who indicates to the public that his
practice is based on a sectarian system of medicine shall be en-
titled to professional fellowship or to recognition in medical
bodies."
Although this proposed revision was not adopted by the na-
tional association, a compromise having been effected resulting
in the substitution of the new principles of ethics referred to
above, I present these two sections relating to consultations
5
and other ethical relations, representing as they do the ma-
jority opinion of the New York State Medical Association, at
least two years ago, as indicative of what we are to expect from
less enlightened state societies than this representative one
of the "Empire State."
•
This cap of "sectarian system of medicine," though meant for
us, does not fit us, and the old school profession would realize
that it does not if they would acknowledge that a homœo-
pathic physician is a regular and reputable physician, and one
who adds to his knowledge and practice of general medicine
a special knowledge and practice of homoeopathic therapeutics.
The old school concedes to physicians the right to engage in
a special knowledge and practice of every other legitimate de-
partment under the medical sun, from surgery and the various
other specialties requiring mechanical technique to electro-
therapeutics dependent upon the application of certain prin-
ciples of electrical action; but when it comes to a special knowl-
edge and practice of drug-therapeutics dependent upon the ap-
plication of certain principles of drug action, providing it hap-
pens to be the homœopathic principle of drug action, then
must excommunication at once follow.
All this indicates that in the eyes of the old school of medi-
cine one cannot practice in accordance with the homoeopathic
principle of drug action, which is as much a reality and very
much more specific and curative than any principle of electrical
action, without indicating to the public that this practice, al-
though engaged in as an addendum to all the qualifications of
general medicine, is a narrow and exclusive "sectarian sys-
tem of medicine." This is why this section of the new code.
proposed by the New York State Medical Association was in-
tended to apply especially to us; and, then again, we would rec-
ognize it as such, and from out of the past, on account of its
familiar context.
In the face of the spirit of this flat refusal of professional
fellowship or recognition to homeopathic physicians, no in-
telligent and fair-minded judge or jury would ascribe the ac-
tion of old school medicine in declaring for either open consul-
tations or amalgamation to motives prompting in the slightest
degree our welfare in the future or atoning in the slightest de-
gree for injustice in the past.
With a realization of this fact in his mind the questions,
which were directed to the old school of medicine by your
President in his address of last May, asking what our status
1
6
4
would be when received into the fold of amalgamated medi-
cine, were as potent as the replies of the editor of the Maryland
Medical Journal, as found in the July issue, were patent.
Let us give a few moments to a consideration of a portion of
this editorial replying to your President's address, in order
that we may appreciate the attitude of the old school of medi-
cine from the individual point of view. Before doing so al-
low me to say that Dr. Price is to be congratulated and the
generous editor commended for the deserved and kindly ex-
pressions, concerning your President, contained in the open-
ing of the editorial.
But when it comes to a consideration of his conception of
homœopathy, as outlined in the editorial, it is to be sincerely
desired that this old school physician and all colleagues asso-
ciated with him in his national association were as well in-
formed as to the principles and practice of homœopathy, and
the aspirations and aims of its practitioners as he himself is
plain and candid as to the relation which homoeopathy and its
practitioners would bear to old school medicine after the latter
had absorbed ourselves and our principles.
The following extracts from this editorial so clearly indi-
cate this relation, as well as the motive leading up to a revision.
of the old code of ethics, that I quote: "Our permissions and
expectations have so often been brought to naught by men in
our own ranks, that we dare not say what we shall expect or
permit our homeopathic friends to do with liberated facul-
ties. Dr. Price's question cannot be answered except by ex-
periment." "Dr. Price believes that the homoeopathic law of
therapeutics is an important part of medical truth. If such it
be, and if it can be engrafted and made to grow upon the body
of accepted scientific truth, then the faith of the homoeopath-
ist will indeed be engulfed and his distinctive marks obliter-
ated." "We are of the opinion that any considerable move-
ment of the homeopathists toward affiliation with the 'regu-
lars' would not yield them any advantage as a party." And
now as to the motive, I quote again: "We are not prepared to
ascribe a very virtuous quality to the act of removing them.
It is doubtful if we were actuated by a deep sense of justice;
but it was not an indifferent act, and certainly not a party
manoeuver. It is not surprising, however, that the homoeo-
pathists are inclined to scrutinize the deed from a party stand-
point." "We have not removed the barriers in the belief that
7
the distinctive homoeopathic faith can or will or ought to be
planted in our field."
We pass over these quotations without comment, as they
speak for themselves with sufficient distinctness.
It is with the following quotations that I desire to pause to
take issue, not in any controversial or antagonistic spirit, but to
sincerely show to what an extent the cause and purpose of the
existence of homoeopathy, and the position, relative to general
medicine, which homœopathic practitioners hold, are misjudg-
ed by the old school of medicine. These quotations, after refer-
ring to the life or death of our faith being dependent upon its
vitality, a sentiment to which we heartily subscribe, go on in
this wise: "In either case whether the faith increases or de-
clines, the 'practical' significance of the sectairan name must
fade. To the individual 'homoeopathists' the practical value
of the designation can be as certainly destroyed by universal
adoption as by unanimous rejection, and the only way to
preserve it is to circumscribe its growth within party lines.
For the fully persuaded adherent of homoeopathy the question
appears to be whether he shall risk the disintegration of his
party for the sake of propagating his faith. The conditions upon
which he may do so are not quite so simple as they appear.
Besides being a legally qualified practitioner he must profess
that his practice is not based upon an exclusive dogma and he
must announce himself to the public simply as a physician."
The real purpose for which homoeopathy exists is not a con-
sideration of the practical value of its name, nor a desire to
preserve it in any partisan spirit or to serve any unworthy
partisan end. Rather is it the purpose of homoeopathy, and
that which has been its constant incentive, to develop and pro-
mulgate its principle of drug action and the essential tenets
bearing upon this principle. In view of this fact no one, who
is acquainted with the experience of our practitioners, even up
to a quarter of a century ago, in encountering the bitter
medical ostracism of those days and its intended effects upon
the public, can gainsay this purpose; and no statement will be
in accordance with fact which imputes to the practitioners of
homœopathy a maintenance of its organizations for more
rapid advancement, financial gain, or any other sordid partisan
motive as constituting in the least the aim or purpose for which
homœopathy exists. In fact, this very propagation of his
faith constituting the life-work and mainspring of homeo-
pathy, demonstrates that the question for the adherent of ho-
8
i
mœopathy is the very antithesis of the question quoted; inas-
much as the question for the homoeopathic practitioner to set-
tle is not "whether he shall risk the disintegration of his party
for the sake of propagating his faith," but whether he shall
risk the propagating of his faith in the hands of the old school
of medicine after the disintegration of his party, which would
surely occur if affiliation were consented to by us on the terms
laid down by them.
Let us now give our attention to the last clause of these quo-
tations which, with your permission, I will repeat: "Besides
being a legally qualified practitioner he must profess that his
practice is not based upon an exclusive dogma and he must.
announce himself to the public simply as a physician." I have
already extended our congratulations to the old school for at
last recognizing us as regular physicians, which is only an-
other name for legally qualified practitioners; and have al-
ready professed that our practice is not based upon an exclu-
sive dogma and that it does not consist of a sectarian system of
medicine, in their implied meaning of the term, inasmuch as our
special practice of homoeopathic therapeutics has been offi-
cially stated by our national society to be not a subtraction
from, but an addendum to our qualifications as general physi-
cians.
That a homœopathic physician, or in other words a believer
in and practitioner of the beneficent results of homoeopathic
therapeutics, must not allow the public to become cognizant of
this fact, under penalty of loss of ethical standing in his pro-
fession on the ground that he has announced himself to the
public otherwise than "simply as a physician," is a demand
as unworthy as it is ridiculous; and for this reason is a de-
mand to which we shall never be able to accede.
Their demand amounts to this: We accept their overtures to
go over into the old school camp; a very respectably large and
intelligent proportion of the public still desire homœopathic
treatment; they ask us if we still believe in and continue to
practice what they desire and that for which they are seeking;
we are told to answer them by switching on the ethical grapho-
phone: "We are simply physicians, no homoeopathic help
here."
It would be no more futile or ridiculous for the old school
of medicine to add another section to their code, decreeing
that no one of them practising in the field of surgery, otology,
or electro-therapeutics shall be known to the public as a sur-
9
geon, aurist, or electro-therapeutist; and that any one profess-
ing to stand as such before the public shall be deprived of fel-
lowship and recognition among them, because such an one has
announced himself to the public otherwise than “simply as a
physician." This they never would or could do, and yet be-
lievers in and practitioners of the special field of homœopathic
therapeutics must pay the price of renunciation of all such be-
lief and practice, for the purchase of professional fellowship
and recognition in old school medical bodies.
This attitude of the old school of medicine, revealed to us
from both the official and individual point of view, assures
us that amalgamation with the old school of medicine at the
present time would mean for us not affiliation or co-operation
in the true sense of these words, but merely absorption so far
as our identity is concerned, and suppression or rejection of
those principles and tenets for which a scientific and practical
homœopathy stands.
Absorption of ourselves and our homœopathic organiza-
tions, as well as suppression of the principles and tenets rep-
resenting a century's life work of these organizations being
the controlling factor prompting the old school of medicine in
their dealings with us, certainly demonstrates why a continu-
ance of homœopathy is justifiable on account of the attitude
of old school medicine toward homoeopathy and its practi-
tioners.
I will do old school medicine the justice of believing that
such statements as are contained in this editorial, as well as
the uncompromising attitude of old school medicine itself
toward homœopathy are honest in that they are prompted
by a misconception of what homeopathy is, the cause of its
origin and the purpose for which it exists; however, granting
this, I believe such misconception to be as reprehensible as it is
unwarranted.
Notwithstanding this misconception, homoeopathy has made
a profound impression upon the world of medicine. Exception
cannot be taken to this fact as evidenced by the effect it has
had upon the practice of old school medicine; by the fact of the
use of many of our remedies, improperly prescribed though
they are, by many old school practitioners, though always
without acknowledgment as to their source or the principle of
drug action; and by their willingness and, in some quarters,
their eagerness to treat with us. But exception can well be
taken to the material side of their yielding to this impression
ΙΟ
at the instance of our own success, their own expediency, and
almost at the demand of the public. Had this impression been
born of a willingness to look into, to accept and to acknowl-
edge the intrinsic value of that for which homœopathy stands,
this reprehensible and unwarranted misconception would not
now be prompting its attitude of refusing fellowship and recog-
nition in old school medical bodies to homœopathic practi-
tioners.
History bears out this statement, for it reveals that Hahne-
mann sought to obtain a hearing for his discoveries through
the most legitimate and ethical channels, as evidenced by his
contributions to Hufeland's Journal during the twelve years
succeeding 1796, the date of the appearance in this journal of
his first contribution, entitled "Essay on a New Principle for
Ascertaining the Curative Power of Drugs."
Had his colleagues extended to him and his investigations
the same deserved recognition and consideration which the
renowned Hufeland extended during this period, there would
not have been written into the history of medicine the unrea-
sonable opposition to, and rejection of, the investigations of
Hahnemann the physician nor the unjustifiable acrimony and
persecution of Hahnemann the man.
So great was this opposition and persecution that Hahne-
mann, though a man of exceptionable scholarship, of pre-emi-
nent learning in the physical sciences as attested by his stand-
ing as an authority in chemistry, and a physician whose at-
tainments in the field of general medicine were of the highest
order, was unable to obtain from his profession that honest
and honorable consideration of his investigations and teachings
to which they were entitled and to which his colleagues were
as honestly and honorably invited.
As a result of this closure of official contemporary medi-
cine to the truths which he offered there occurred the inevitable
thing to occur under the circumstances, namely, that segrega-
tion of medical men to whom his truths did appeal, and which
was necessary to their development and promulgation inasmuch
as these truths would not be received, not even for examination,
by the official medicine of the times.
This segregation, thus forced into existence by the same in-
tolerant medicine which ever after has so strongly objected to
the existence of the creature of its own creating, and increased,
strengthened and more firmly united by a continuance of the
same intolerant attitude through the century, resulted in the
II
birth of homoeopathy and its development into the scientific,
practical and eminently successful method of therapeutics mak-
ing up the bone and sinew of our distinctive school of medi-
cine of the present time. So much for the cause of our having
been given birth, and under circumstances over which we had
about as much control as we have over our other prenatal
bearings.
Intolerant medicine having caused the birth of homoeopathy
by thus forcing into existence this segregation of physicians
accepting the truths offered by Hahnemann, and a continuance
of this intolerant attitude during the century having necessi-
tated a distinctive school of medicine as the only means by
which homœopathy could maintain its existence, it is still in-
tolerant medicine, as manifested by their official withholding
of fellowship and recognition from us so long as we remain
homœopathic practitioners, which makes a continuance of
homœopathy as a distinctive school of medicine as necessary
as it is justifiable.
In thus frankly sounding the attitude of old school medi-
cine toward homoeopathy and homoeopathic practitioners,
and thereby demonstrating not only the justification, but the
necessity, of a longer continuance as a distinctive school of
medicine, I desire to repeat my opening sentiment that it is
furthest from my desire or purpose to deal with this ques-
tion in any narrow or prejudiced partisan spirit. Rather is it
a fair and honest attempt to allow past and present history
to speak for itself, for the purpose of guiding us aright to a
proper performance of our trust as guardians of the principles
and practice of homœopathy, and of the rights thereof.
In our continuance as a distinctive school of medicine let us
be as frank and honest with ourselves, in our own attitude to-
ward homœopathy, as we are in our criticism of the attitude
of old school medicine toward ourselves.
Let our attitude toward homoeopathy be such as that we
shall impress the world of medicine that we neither accept the
teachings of Hahnemann nor follow out its practice as blind
partisans of Hahnemann, believing and doing merely because
he believed and did thus and so; but as liberal and progressive
physicians who are giving our special attention to the study
and practice of homœopathy, because its therapeutic prin-
ciple and the essential tenets pertaining thereto are being con-
stantly attested as valid by the scientific discoveries and de-
velopments in the various fields contributory to medicine, and
I2
because the therapeutic application of this principle of drug
action in accordance with these tenets is constantly affording
us demonstrable and irrefutable clinical results.
We can best render unto Hahnemann the things that are
Hahnemann's, in our acknowledgment and gratitude to him
as the promulgator of these principles which stand thus at-
tested, by our testifying to the superiority of the genius of the
man and physician over the transcendentalism and ignorance
of the times in which he lived; and to this superiority we most
certainly do testify when we accept these principles which are
an outcome of his genius, and reject certain explanatory theor-
ies which are the outcome of the transcendental and ignorant
philosophy of his day, but which crept in alongside these prin-
ciples.
When the world of medicine is thus impressed with our
unanimous attitude toward our own school of medicine it will
acknowledge that we are in possession of a homœopathy, as
scientific and sound in its philosophy as it is practicable and
efficient in its therapeutic application.
Then will the older school of medicine extend to us that
true affiliation, carrying with it full fellowship and recognition
to us as homoeopathic physicians. But until such a medical
day dawns on the horizon of old school medicine we must in-
sist upon "The Continuance of Homœopathy as a Distinctive
School of Medicine."
13
¡
sil,
1
:

Filmed by Preservation 1990

"
.: