BMJ

Dr. Webster on Medical ReformAuthor(s): George WebsterSource: Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal (1844-1852), Vol. 15, No. 19 (Sep. 17, 1851), pp.528-529Published by: BMJStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25493097 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Provincial Medical and SurgicalJournal (1844-1852).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:10:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

528 DR. WEBSTER ON MEDICAL REFORM.

reasonings be they ever so absurd; and then our

answers must be calm, full, and explicit. I would urge

strongly on all those who do not possess the temper, or

who will not take the trouble, thus to inform them

selves, to keep silence when homoeopathy is under dis

cussion ; otherwise, they will only injure the cause which

their zeal prompts them to serve. Many men of great

intelligence among the public have adopted homoeopathy,

they are well informed as to what can be said in its

favour, and they are not to be convinced of their error

by shoulder-shrugging, and denunciatory epithets. I

will take the liberty to quote here the conclusion of a

paper I read before the Bath and Bristol Branch of the

Association, in March of last year, on "A case of

Cataleptiform Hysteria, apparently induced by Mes

merism." t( In these?the flourishing days of empiri cism in every form, I conceive it to be no less the

duty than the interest of the legitimist in medicine

to make himself acquainted with the doctrines of the

leading quackeries afloat, so as to enable him to give a

reason for their rejection to those who inquire of him

concerning them. It is neither wise nor in good taste

to be always thrusting our denunciations of this or that

empirical system into the teeth of those who believe in

them; by so doing we add strength to the delusion. Unless we are^ appealed to for an opinion, all that is

demanded of us is a calm indifference; and if our

opinion is asked, as so frequently happens, I believe we

shall best consult the interest of legitimate medicine by

admitting frankly whatever of truth the particular system under discussion may appear to us to contain, and by

pointing out dispassionately where we consider truth to

terminate, and fiction to commence. By so doing we

shall let it appear that our rejection of the system has not arisen from prejudice, or from a want of attention to its claims, but because it presents, along with a less or greater substratum of truth, a huge superstructure of

assumption and of falsehood." This may suffice to

show that the plan of dealing with homoepathy which I

have now proposed for the consideration of the pro

fession, has not only occurred to me to fit the present

occasion, and I may further observe, that I have put this plan in practice on some few occasions with sufficient success to justify my recommendation of it to others whose opportunity is much larger, as their ability to do it justice is much greater than mine.

In conclusion, I would earnestly entreat of my pro fessional brethren to pause before they give occasion to the followers of Hahneman to get up the whine of

persecution. There is no way by which we can so

effectually serve their purpose as by making seeming martyrs of them;?by enabling them to go before their noble patrons with the cry of persecution in their

mouths;?by enabling them to proclaim themselves sufferers and victims in the sacred cause of truth?they

will become at once Galileos, and we shall be the en chainers of the human mind.

I am Sir, your obedient Servant, WILLIAM DAVIES, M.D.,

Physician to the Bath United Hospital.

Bath, August 27,1851.

DR. WEBSTER ON MEDICAL REFORM.

To the Editor of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal.

Sir,?As I could not possibly attend the general meeting of our Association at Brighton, I addressed a letter to Sir Charles Hastings, with a request that it

might be read at the Council, and also at the the public meeting, unless material alteration should be made in the Report respecting Medical Reform.

I understand by a note from Sir C. Hastings "

that he read it to the Council, and they unanimously came to the decision that my letter, as well as some others which

were sent to him and to the Secretary for that purpose, should not be read at the public meeting."

As I am wishful to have an opportunity of placing my opinions before my colleagues of the Association, and believing that many of them, and a large majority of the general practitioners of England and Wales entertain similar sentiments,?though they may differ from those of some of the leaders of the Association?

you will much oblige me by publishing my letter in the next number of our Journal.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, GEORGE WEBSTER.

To Sir Charles Hastings, M.D., ?*c.

My dear Sir,?I am hourly expecting an anxious

midwifery case, which, if not over in time, will deprive me of the pleasure of attending our anniversary meeting at Brighton. I shall regret this the more, because I

particularly wish to be present at the Council meeting on Tuesday evening, to suggest some alterations in the

prop&sed Report of the Council. In case of my absence, therefore, I write to protest

respectfully, but earnestly, against the course indicated in the Report on the question of Medical Reform. Should the Council propose, and the members present at the anniversary

" accept the proffered terms of the

College of Surgeons, with some slight modifications," "as the basis of a final settlement of the question," they will, in my humble opinion, show a great amount of gratitude for very small concessions, while they will

betray the rights and interests of a great majority of the Association and of the profession. Such a scheme may probably meet the wishes of those who are anxious to become fellows of the College; but as regards the

degraded members, they will gain nothing, unless they acquire full, free, and unrestricted votes in the election of the Council, and be also themseves eligible to seats on the Council. It appears to me as if the Central Council of the Association had considered chiefly the

privileges of the fellows of the College, and forgotten the claims of other practitioners. The great majority of medical men are not consulting but general practi tioners, and whether members of the College of Surgeons only, or licentiates of the Society of Apothecaries, or

both,?or holding other diplomas and licences in addition to these, or without them,?they must be viewed as one body, and their rights and interests as identical. I

consider, then, that the new proposal (which you and

your colleagues of the Central Council approve of) to

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:10:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KOUSSO AS A SPECIFIC FOR TAPE-WORM. 529

take from the general practitioners the power to regulate the education and test the qualifications of their own

body, and confer it on the Colleges of Physicians and

Surgeons would not only be a flagrant act of injustice, but would be fraught with great danger to the public health.

Is it in accordance with our experience of human

motives and corporate actions, to believe that the

Colleges would ever view with favour, or govern with

equity, the general practitioners of this country, whose

interests are opposed to their own, and who have been called into existence by the wants of the public, in

direct opposition to the intentions and wishes of these

bodies ? Is it for a moment to be supposed that the

Colleges, who have erected, and are still erecting, barriers between themselves and the general practi tioners, by examinations, fellowships, and distinctions

hitherto unknown,?so that one class shall appear to be a very superior body, and the other a very inferior one,

?is it to be supposed that they will be anxious to

enlarge the curriculum, raise the qualifications, or

elevate the status of the general practitioner ? Un

doubtedly not. And thus the public will be deprived of the manifest advantages which a friendly rivalry and

professional emulation would naturally produce among the different bodies from self-government and the power to test the qualifications of their own members. Self

government is the first law of society, and why should one body legislate for or govern another ? What do we see when such an unnatural system exists ? We see

confusion, discontent, degradation, oppression, and con

tinual agitation?the governing section trampling upon the governed, and, as I have said, with loss to, and

neglect of, the public interests.

You are aware that my own feelings and convictions have long been in favour of a single

ie Faculty of

Medicine and Surgery," as the most natural and just

arrangement for all parties; but after years of fruitless efforts for its attainment, a large body of reformers,

comprising numerous Associations, determined, that as

the general practitioners were unrepresented and uncared

for in the Colleges, the next best step to a Faculty of

Medicine would be a Royal College for their own

government and examination. " The so-called con

cessions of the Council of the College of Surgeons" are

certainly not sufficient to satisfy even their own mem

bers, who are to have no votes and no participation in

the management of the College?these being reserved

for the favoured fellows only; far less ought the general

practitioners who are not members of the London

College to be satisfied with a plan which would place them under the step-mother government of bodies who

have always been opposed to them.

The Report states that all the accredited Associations

had been consulted, and had agreed to the proposed

plan ! I protest on behalf of the National Institute of

Medicine, Surgery, and Midwifery, as being directly

opposed to such a scheme; and I believe they will not

cease to agitate the question until the general practi tioners obtain self-government and the right to test the

qualifications of their own class, either in a College of

their own, or in conjunction with the present Colleges, as part of a general plan for the whole profession.

The Report also entirely overlooks the Society of

Apothecaries, though in one of the memorials to Sir

George Grey, it is assumed that "they have very laudably expressed their willingness to resign into com

petent hands the management of the examinations in medicine and pharmacy." I believe the Society do not consider the Colleges either safe or competent hands, and that they will not willingly resign their powers, which have been so beneficial to the profession, into any hands but those of their own class.

While so much opposition has arisen from some of the provincial surgeons and physicians, to the Royal

College of General Practitioners, and whilst strong objections have also been made by the College of

Surgeons, it is remarkable that all parties should have

been so apathetic as regarded the proposed Pharmacy Bill, which would have created new vested rights, and

added another element of discord in the settlement of

the medical question. The Pharmacy Bill would have

created a Royal Pharmaceutical College, which, with a

very slight addition, would soon have become in reality a College of General Practitioners of a very low gradet to the detriment of the public. Surely the Society of

Apothecaries, the long-established and legal regulators of pharmacy, are perfectly fit and competent to test the

qualifications of chemists and druggists without the

creation of another College to make confusion worse

confounded.

I am happy to be able to entirely concur in the other

parts of the Report, and especially in that which refers to the false lights of homoeopathy, hydropathy, and

mesmerism; and I heartily trust that a strong resolu

tion will be passed at the general meeting to cleanse the

Association from the pollution of all practitioners of

these and similar quackeries. Allow me to add one

word as to the annual volume of Transactions. I hope that in future it will be issued at an earlier period of the

year, and in the old form, bound in cloth, so that it

may neither be a disgrace to the Association, nor run

the risk of being torn and otherwise injured in its

passage through the Post-office.

With every good wish for a pleasant meeting, and

regretting my own unavoidable absence, Believe me, my dear Sir Charles,

Yours very faithfully, George Webster.

P.S.?I hope you will allow this to be read at the

Council meeting, and also at the general meeting, should

no material alteration be made in the Report. G. W.

Dulwich, August 11, 1851.

KOUSSO AS A SPECIFIC FOR TAPE-WORM.

To the Editor of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal.

Sir,?I perceive in your report of the Brighton

meeting, that Dr. Crisp read a paper to prove that " Kousso was not a specific for tape-worm." The

cases recorded in this country are yet assuredly too few

to allow its denomination as a specific; they are, how

ever, sufficient to permit its appellation as#a valuable

remedy. I will add one to the number.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:10:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions