In the August Journal of he A.I.H. are two very interesting articles; not only interesting, but if carefully read they are thought provoking. The one is by E. Wallace MacAdam. His subject is “The Future of Homoeopathy.” The other is by C.A. Weiricks. His subject is, “Have We an Objective and the Wisdom to Fight For It?”.
The former is the usual address, made at banquets whether of alumni associations, state or other societies. The object on all such follow or to assist in digesting the one just indulged in, according as the toastmasters address precedes or follows the “eats.” Everything said on such occasions should be light, rosy, cheerful, optimistic; nothing heavy, dark, gloomy or discouraging.
On such occasions, especially after the feasting of the inner man, the speaker is not expected to stick closely to his text, but may wander far afield; he is permitted “to stretch the truth;” he is allowed to give the imagination full play provided that by wandering afield, stretching the truth and seeing visions he adds to the pleasure of the occasion. Neither the address not its subject matter are formally discussed at the time, though both may be later.
Toastmaster MacAdam began by referring to a secret meeting of abolitionists held in New York City in 1860, at which meeting “Garrett Smith announced it was perfectly evident the abolition of slavery would not come in his own life” and “then called upon al those under thirty to rise and pledge themselves to continue the fight.” The toastmaster further states, “On September 22, 1862. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and slavery was ended forever.” Following the above Dr. MacAdam sounds the key-noted of his address in the following sentence: “We never know what is just around the corner”.
Then comes a paragraph pregnant with truth to be used as a black background on which to paint a bright, gloriously illuminated picture. It reads, “We who have become discouraged about the future of our school, we who have seen our colleges swept way, our county societies disappearing, our hospitals changing their names-we often feel very sad and discouraged about the future”.
Then again with a quick rapid stroke of the brush he covers the black with white, “a white lie” as such statements are, especially the last two lines of the next paragraph, viz., “The message I bring to you as your toastmaster tonight is this: Any sorrow or discouragement as to the future of homoeopathy is based on a total misunderstanding as to what is actually taking place. Although sectarian homoeopathy is dying, scientific homoeopathy is growing stronger every year, every month, ever day”.
I wonder if there can be any misunderstanding about that paragraph? especially about the words “sectarian,” “scientific” and “stronger”?.
After referring to the relation between the homoeopathic and allopathic physicians at the beginning of the Spanish War and of his boyhood days, and showing that it was that relation which forced the homoeopathists of those days to become sectarian and build their own schools and hospitals “to save their professional lives,” Dr. MacAdam says: “We did not want to be sectarian then, nor should we want to be sectarian now.” “Has anyone here his sign- John Smith, M.D., Homoeopath? Why not” Because not one of us wants to be sectarian”.
A little further on the toastmaster says: “Yet I believe that we have suffered much because of the feeling of religious fervor actuating Hahnemann and many of our associates. Homoeopathy is a scientific truth, not a religion.
“As the years have passed we have gradually been able to live down the opprobrium of being homoeopaths. Gradually opposition has been withdrawn, gradually it has been recognized that the homoeopaths are scientists and successful in the treatment of the sick. Gradually medical societies have been opened to them, hospitals are no longer closed to them, the old school men are glad to consult with them. Gradually all the causes of the original division into school have disappeared.
Our men have been welcomed everywhere, in the Army and Navy, in the American Medical Association, in the College of Surgeons and the College of Physicians. We are not required to give up our belief; on the contrary, we join these societies and promulgate our faith. Homoeopathy is gaining in the profession at large. It has had a tremendous impetus in Germany, following the epoch-making pronouncement of August Bier.
“Sectarian homoeopathy is dying because we homoeopaths are association and co-operating with members of the old school. Scientific homoeopathy is growing stronger all the time because, mingling in friendly intercourse, we are spreading abroad our scientific principles.” Still further on he is quoted as follows: “Therefore, let us not be discouraged because we see our homoeopathic societies falling off.
They are growing weaker, not because of defeat, but because we have won the good fight. We have not failed, we have succeeded.” This is a remarkable statement, very heartily applauded. But still more remarkable is the last paragraph-the climax, viz., “Just as the Abolitionist PArty was killed when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, so medical sectarianism was killed when August Bier published his defense and explanation of scientific homoeopathy!”.
Dr. MacAdams address may be summed up about as follows: Our forefathers became sectarians from necessity; they put up a good and great fight; they won a beneficent, glorious and complete victory; they forced the allopaths to open the doors of their colleges and hospitals to homoeopathic students and practitioners; they forced the allopaths to admit us homoeopaths into their societies; they made the allopaths glad to consult with homoeopath; they forced the Government to welcome homoeopaths in the Army and Navy, etc. Our fathers did all this. Now there is nothing for us to do. Homoeopathy has fulfiled its mission. Let us show that we are worthy sons of such valiant, heroic, successful fighters by simply acknowledging that all is well “just around the corner”.
Ah! Would That This Were True. Would that I could even believe that this were true.
Before expressing my doubts in form of questions let us look at Dr. Weiricks short article. His first two sentences are as follows: “Carrying forward the work of its predecessors, the generation immediately preceding the present attained objectives: made the word homoeopathy a familiar term, known to millions of people; compelled physicians of the dominant school to recognize members of the homoeopathic school as physicians, to consult with them and admit them to their hospitals and societies; influenced public hospitals to place them on their staff; by their better therapeutic results caused the old school to abandon the basis, contraria contraribus curantur, upon which its prescriptions were made, and to change its name from allopathic to regular, also to use infinitesimals. Those ancestors made a successful, heroic, progressive fight.”
Then comes his first question, viz.: “Is there not objective for the homoeopath of the present?” He then states that “a defensive warfare such as our school is carrying on today is a losing one”; that the word homoeopathy is in the obsolescent stage: that “many of the young men and women do not even know what it is.” He then agrees with DR. MacAdam that our schools, hospitals, etc., are slipping away; that our literary output is “reduced to a low minimum.” He further states: “At present we have no definite objective, but are satisfied to try to hold our own and trail along in close proximity to the regular school. The strong position we have inherited from our fathers has destroyed our aggressiveness, our pep, our fighting qualities.
The regulars have given individual and quasi recognition of the homoeopathic law; we should make the effort to secure official endorsement of it by the regular school. The, as are all other medical laws, it would be taught and utilized by every medical college in the world and its status firmly fixed. 0Is the attainment of that objective feasible? Feasibility very often depends upon grit and ability. There are still in the school physicians of great and recognized ability. Will it not possible through them to secure such an official recognition of the law of similia? That is a worthy objective; if there be those of us who think otherwise, will they name another worth struggling to attain? If they cannot, what is the use of trying to maintain a separate school of medicine?”.
We not that both writers agreed that we have struck bottom. We also note the vast difference between the attitude of each toward our condition. Dr. MacAdam feels we should be satisfied with it. There is but little more to be desired and that little is “just around the corner.” DR. Weirick, on the other hand, feels that there is much ground to be secured- a great “objective.” Weirick then asks, “Is the attainment of that objective feasible?” And answers the question, “feasibility very often depends upon grit and ability”.
