Read Ebook: Femina A Work for Every Woman by Miller John A John Alexander

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1503 lines and 138832 words, and 31 pages

I found her after two months of suffering. The discharge had become extremely offensive, her body emaciated, and her strength exhausted.

Some doctors seem to have a perfect mania for cutting operations, just as though the entire science and art of medicine were exhausted in surgery alone. To assume this for an instant is manifestly ridiculous. More lives are annually saved by a scientific application of other methods of cure than the most elaborate and brilliant statistics of surgery can approach. There is science and skill in selecting proper medicines, in the employment of hygiene or the rules of health, in the practice of obstetrics, and in a variety of other ways to demonstrate the triumphs of the art of healing.

The rash and unnecessary resort to the knife has brought surgery into general distrust, so that some patients would rather die, or wait until they are almost dead, before they allow an operation to be performed on them, in cases where surgery is, indeed, the only possible method of cure.

A lady recently called at my office for a consultation. I found her uterus and other pelvic organs in a perfectly healthy condition, although she suffered pain there. This was due to neuralgia from a generally exhausted and debilitated condition. I was not a little surprised to learn, from her own lips, that she had been treated for womb disease, and was about to undergo an operation for a tear in the mouth of her womb. This was manifestly absurd, because no laceration existed at all, and if there had it might not have been necessary, because it is quite natural for women who have borne children to have the scars of old lacerations on the mouths of their wombs, and they are not any the worse for them.

It is important for mothers to know something about themselves and of the common diseases to which they are liable, for then they will not be so easily persuaded to permit the use of caustics, or the cutting, stitching, or scraping of their wombs, which is quite likely to excite complicated inflammations, more serious in their results than the diseases for which these operations were performed. I know of what I write, and there is no one who can successfully deny it.

There is not a physician of any extended experience in the land who, if he be true to his better judgment, will not indorse every word of Professor Goodell's propositions. But the chances are they will never accomplish the good for which they were intended if the mothers, wives, and daughters are not permitted "a little peep" behind the curtain, and learn for themselves. For those who are wealthy and have plenty of money, doctoring may be a luxury or an amusement, but there the line must be drawn for the benefit of the deserving poor, with whom any treatment is a hardship. Stupidity of the masses is one of the causes of the abuse of surgical treatments, for they always look upon a surgical or bloody operation as one of the greatest achievements of modern medical art. Then there is the cupidity of the professional classes, who trade upon this popular error and delusion, and charge correspondingly large fees, which, as a rule, are exorbitant, particularly when the working classes are the sufferers.

A little cutting or stitching is much more quickly done, and the patient may be dismissed as cured, or left under the impression "that everything was done that could have been done," than a conservative medical or hygienic treatment, which involves more thought, labor, and patience, qualities which are not as eagerly cultivated as the art to wring out a good fee by a little surgery, with less labor and skill.

There is not only too much mischievous doctoring, but there is too much of every kind, whether good, bad, or indifferent. The trouble is there are too many in the ranks of the medical profession; and this is not only true of this country, but is raising a cry of warning in Europe. The struggle for existence is a natural law, and nature is immutable. I do not mean to say, that it is a humane law, or that competition is a virtue; in fact, I believe quite the reverse. But much that is natural from a physical standpoint might not be so from a moral or spiritual plane; thus the two natures are distinct.

It is reasonable to suppose that, if the natural crop of diseases falls short of supplying the demands of those who hunger for an opportunity to treat disease, and it lies within their power to create disease, they will certainly do so. The deficiency must be supplied, or one of two things must be done by the doctor: he must either starve, or go to work at something else. This may be cruel logic, but I know that these are the actual facts.

Now let me ask how many persons who have some sort of a diploma will be self-sacrificing enough or sufficiently unselfish to prefer to starve or honestly work for a living, if they can avoid either, by defrauding someone out of a fee, for pretending to cure some manufactured disease? It seems almost a waste of time to argue such a self-evident proposition. I have known physicians of high standing who treated women for womb diseases which never had a real existence, and surgeons of large incomes to remove the female breast for a "supposed cancer;" and, that being the case, what would you expect from a less fortunate brother practitioner who is eking out a miserable existence?

How many a case of simple sore throat or tonsilitis is being paraded as a case of diphtheria. Why, I know of doctors who built up their reputations in that way. It is quite an easy matter, to call an ordinary, simple case of bronchitis, pneumonia. Harmless swellings, no matter of what sort, are treated and palmed off every day as cancers. The quack cancer doctor is almost ubiquitous. Some would much rather part with the village parson, or their regular old town doctor, than to part with the cancer doctor. Diseases that are conjured up in the minds of susceptible or hypochondriac persons have for them a real existence, because if a person believes he has a certain disease, it becomes a reality, as far as his own state of mind is concerned, and as far as the treatment is concerned to him who created the delusion, it is much more desirable than if the disease were real, because you can cure an imaginary disease, which may be impossible when a real one comes under treatment. This is another method of making a reputation for extraordinary cures that really never occurred.

When we now consider that no person can matriculate in a German university who has not graduated from the gymnasium or high school, it is clear that, under the above conditions, the title "doctor" guarantees that the possessor is an educated person, not only of the high school, but added thereto is the accomplishment in the specialty of which he holds the doctor degree.

What may a "doctor degree" mean in this country? The title of an illiterate and utterly incompetent person, who was by natural environment and occupation a teamster, saloon keeper, barber, tailor, or patent-medicine vender, etc.

If a woman, she may be retraced to an ignorant nurse, midwife, or quacksalver, the conceited wife of a man who indulges her in the freak of "learning to be a doctor," for she had demonstrated her genius for the profession by successfully treating a case of measles, which started the doctor's bee a-buzzing in her bonnet, until she passed through a medical college; last, but not least, are the winsome daughters of the millionaire or successful business man, who imagine themselves too smart to make useful housewives and good mothers.

"This subject is one that is often dwelt upon, but we doubt if many even yet realize the grotesque misproportion which medicine in the United States holds to other bread-winning occupations. Here are some of the naked facts in the matter:--

"France has 38,000,000 of population, 11,995 doctors, while it graduates 624 medical students in one year. Germany has 45,000,000 of population, about 30,000 doctors, and graduates 935 students in one year. The United States has about 60,000,000 of population, 100,000 doctors, 13,091 medical students, and graduates 3,740 students in one year.

"Germany, which has relatively less than half as many doctors as America, is already groaning over its surplus. When one compares France with this country, the excess of medical men here seems most astonishing.

"A comparison of the United States with European countries, in whatever way it is made, leads one to think that there is something almost alarming in our medical productiveness."

When the Society of German physicians warns the German people that an overcrowding "insures disastrous consequences," what does it mean?

Medical legislation in this country has been nothing less than a farce, partly because the general public is not aware how abased the profession is, and partly that Americans are extremely jealous of what they term personal liberty. It is being attempted to remedy some of the abuses of the medical profession by regulating the practice of medicine by State Examining Boards. Experience has demonstrated that these boards are but the excrescences of the various medical colleges, who are themselves the root of the very evils that are sought to be remedied. The duties of these boards are simply to make themselves officious, and to inquire into the source of the credentials or diplomas of the applicants for a license to practice medicine, and not into the qualifications or competency of the applicants. All that is necessary under such laws is simply to present a diploma of some sort; whether it was stolen, or the diploma of a dead man, or gotten from any of the numerous worthless colleges, is not made the subject of inquiry; and as by far the greatest number of quack-salvers in this country have diplomas, the law falls short of remedying quackery.

There are, usually, enough boards of examiners, representing the different schools, so that the different interests of the diploma manufacturers are well represented. A medical examining authority whose functions and powers do not go higher or beyond the mere granting of licenses, or which does not examine into the qualifications of the persons who possess diplomas, is utterly absurd, because it is no protection against ignorance and imposition. A law that presumes that all persons holding diplomas are qualified and competent to practice medicine, is essentially wrong, or inadequate to fulfill the purpose for which it was designed. I have known graduates from what were considered good colleges who could neither write a safe prescription nor diagnose a case.

There is only one way towards an approach to an efficient and intelligent board of medical examiners, and that is, one single State board in which the different schools may be represented as to their pet theories of prescribing medicines, but in all other departments of medical science and art there must be a uniformity of talent and qualification.

The State in its sovereignty must prescribe what shall constitute a medical education, and the requirements should be embodied in the statutes. A license or degree from that source, after a final examination, should be the only legitimate license to practice medicine.

Such a method would establish a system that would clearly define the status of every medical practitioner. The board must have the power, and it must be their duty, to examine each and every applicant for a license, as all candidates for the army medical service are examined. All this noise and talk about a preliminary examination and an extended course of medical study are simply the vaporings of superficial minds. It is neither the preliminary course, nor the length of time that a person consumes in trying to become a doctor, in which the public is interested, but what kind of doctor a person is when he hangs out his shingle and begins to practice, whether he is competent to do that which is expected from him in the hour of sickness or great peril, irrespective of any diploma or any medical college. Foreign graduates should be amenable to the same examination, for behind these, too, belongs the interrogation point. The gushing mediocrity of some of these diploma holders gives rise to the suspicion that their credentials are not genuine.

This would simply incorporate in the State laws the distinctive feature of the University of London, which examines and confers graduation on persons who have received instruction in such institutions at home and in the colonies as have satisfied a Secretary of State with regard to their studies.

If the public once understood that too many doctors are dangerous to the morals and health of society, they would be quite as anxious as the most enthusiastic medical educator to remedy the evil.

The question of too many doctors is one of economical and social science, not of medical science, and, therefore, it can only be intelligently considered from these philosophical standpoints. It is a well-understood and accepted law of political economy that in the industrial pursuits, whether in the manufacturing departments or in agricultural production, the surplus or glut in the market of any of the products of industry, reduces the price and stimulates consumption, which, in the course of time, is regulated by a suspended or reduced production, thus restoring a healthy equilibrium. It would be an absurdity to apply the same rule to a surplus of doctors, because human ills or diseases do not increase in proportion to the surplus of doctors, nor will fees be any less. But the surplus, in order to live, must live on the earnings of the community, and here the disastrous consequences appear.

The credulous, and those who often may imagine that they require medical advice, become the unconscious victims of the unhealthy disproportion, for the doctor seizes the opportunity to make a case, while the normal proportion of cases do not reach around. Thus, it is calculated that at least fifty per cent. of all the diseases for which patients are treated are fictitious as far as actual disease is concerned, and the remaining fifty per cent. are, in the majority of instances, overdosed and overdoctored. For this reason medical legislation would not make a privileged class of physicians, nor throw unusual safeguards around medical practitioners, but medical legislation is to protect the people themselves from imposition and quackery.

The reason for the overcrowded state of the profession is not alone the laxity of medical laws, or the low standard of medical education in most of our colleges, but the general tendency of the country population to drift into the cities. Honest labor has not the dignity which its importance demands, and a radically faulty method of common-school education is another reason. Utilitarian manual methods, in which the hands are educated for useful employment and the minds to habits of industry, are to be wished for. Young men who have acquired a technical education in mechanics and arts will learn to respect labor in every department, and their ambition in life will be greater than to swing a cane or wear a silk tile.

In proportion as the productive employments are made respectable, this questionable ambition to become M. D.'s will fall off.

History tells us that the opulence of Rome was speedily accompanied by a decline of its agriculture, after which came the fall of the Roman Empire, because the country population became too indolent and restless and flocked to the cities for an easier and luxurious living. History in this respect seems to be repeating itself. We are always talking of encouraging the beauty and growth of our cities, but not one word of encouraging agriculture; no one talks of encouraging farm life and making it profitable and attractive, so that men and women would prefer the more independent subsistence in the country to a shabby gentility in the city. Some reader may ask, What has all this to do with doctoring? I say that the answer must already have been apparent; it becomes the duty of everyone to interest himself, that the division of labor shall be apportioned so as to do the greatest good to society.

We have a national characteristic which shows itself in an abnormal conceit for everything American in a degree that is not essential for true patriotism and love of country. But when by comparisons we learn that there are abuses and errors which are destructive to a healthy intellectual and material growth, we must have the honesty and independence to acknowledge them, and busy ourselves to find a remedy for existing evils.

Hence there is only one remedy to control the educational aspect of this evil, and that is to take medical colleges entirely out of the hands of private individuals and make the State the only source of the necessary credentials to practice medicine.

An American system of medical education fostered by the State would be productive of grand results, because, under the shadow of our free institutions, the mind transcends the circumscribed sphere of despotism. This has already been proven in numerous instances, notwithstanding unfavorable surroundings.

Forming the galaxy of great names that illumine the milky way of science, there are none brighter than a Gross, a Flint, a Sims, and some others. These were great American authors and physicians, who never pretended anything else; they never dreamt of the Don Quixotic escapade of pretending to be American professors while they appended to their names initials or abbreviations of questionable credit from foreign institutions. The brilliancy of true genius was their only passport to fame.

DELUSIONS AS TO THE CURATIVE VALUE OF DRUGS.

MEDICINES that are sure cures for all the diseases to which humanity is heir, are not the spurious discoveries of the quacksalver and patent-medicine vender alone, but some very intelligent persons believe that if there is not a panacea, there is at least a remedy, for every disease. In cases where the patient does not recover, they believe that either the disease was not thoroughly understood or the medicines which were given were not properly selected.

This is a great error, because there is no such thing as a specific or infallible remedy for any disease, and, on the other hand, it is quite possible that most patients, with proper nursing and diet, would naturally recover without any drugs or medicines whatever. Outside of those drugs, like ether, chloroform, opium, or morphine, that are employed for the purpose of deadening the sensibility of the nerves, so as to render them insensible to pain, there is not another drug that is absolutely sure and true in its medical effects. Some few are very useful at times, but the great bulk of medicines do much more harm than good.

Medicine in its broad sense means a knowledge of the cause, course, treatment and ultimate results of disease. The study of medicine cannot be circumscribed by dogma or theory, nor can it be mastered in a few short years of study at the very best medical schools. It requires a mind adapted by nature for a plodding investigation of her laws, and incessant application, long after the college curriculum is ended. In fact, the student must unlearn much of the stereotyped lessons of the text-books, and this is particularly true of the supposed medicinal effects of drugs, which are always exaggerated. When physicians really have a threatening case, under their observation and care, the attributed therapeutic action of drugs is nearly always disappointing, and very often injurious, and they are forced to let the drugging entirely alone, and bring their skill to bear on measures which support the strength and vitality of the system, so that nature can effect a cure in her own way. This may seem to some simple doctoring, but I can assure the reader that it requires the highest degree of medical skill, notwithstanding the droll sarcasm of Voltaire, that "medical science is the art of amusing the patient while nature performs the cure." There is neither skill nor much learning required to give an ordinary prescription; that the average apothecary could do with the greatest exactness. But science and medical skill can be exhausted in managing and husbanding the resources of nature, in order to effect a cure.

Medicine no longer stands alone as a simple art, based on theoretical deductions, as it was less than a hundred years ago, but it has become a department of natural science, a part of the natural history of the human race.

Disease is as much a vital process as health, only in one case the vital function is perverted, or destructive, while in health it is constructive. The germ theory of disease and cellular pathology are clearly within the domain of biological research, while chemistry has solved many physiological processes. Mental philosophy has been no less serviceable in the department of medicine, by teaching the wonderful influence of thought and emotions on the physiological functions of the organs.

The reparative energy of nature has never been duly recognized, because the selfishness and pride of the doctors will not concede this as often as they ought. The doctor should be the most useful as a monitor to the sick, in guiding and controlling thought and conduct, in harmony with the curative energy of nature. From this point of view the pretensions of anyone effecting this or that cure are only a delusion, because the doctor effects nothing, he only assists, guides, and directs towards effecting a cure. What this curative force is has by no means been understood. Some believe it identical with life or vital action, which manifests itself only in organized substances, but even if we admit this identity, we are balked again, because we do not really know what life is, any more than we know what electricity is. Descartes resolved life into matter and motion; this, however, is rather the phenomena of life and gives us no idea of the real essence of the force that we call life. There is another theory, that all life whenever or wherever found is a spiritual force, ethereal and universal. For our purpose, the discussion of this question has no particular value, were it not for the fact that life, or vital activity, wherever we find it in organized substances, whether in the lowest living thing or in the highest type of physical development, is accompanied by or is endowed with the natural tendency to repair defects or injuries in that in which it is active.

Regeneration, or the curative process of nature, is always the handmaid of vital activity. It is present at the earliest formation and division of a cell, which constitutes the unit of all organisms. Just as one brick is laid on the other with mortar or cement between them, so as to make a whole wall of a building, so are our bodies built up of minute cells, one added to the other, with cement between them, until the entire structure is completed. There is no tissue of the living body which was not at one time during its existence a cell. This curative force is beautifully illustrated in the lower animals, where parts of organs are replaced to a far greater extent than among warm-blooded animals.

The question now naturally arises How far this curative energy of nature operates in warm-blooded animals, and especially in man? The answer must be that, while it falls short of reproducing parts of organs or even tissues in the same degree of perfection as in the lower orders, the innate tendency towards regeneration and recovery from injury and disease is, on certain lines, practically the same. There is not the slightest doubt that ninety per cent. of all cures, whether the invalid took this, that, or the other medicine, or whether the method of treatment was homeopathic, allopathic, or mind cure, are entirely due to this inherent curative energy; and the other ten per cent. may have required some active remedy, but this, too, alone, without nature's healing force, would have been ineffectual.

What is ordinarily termed mind cure is not mind cure in the sense that the term implies, but it is simply the mind toying or playing with the idea of a cure, for while the mind is thus engaged, nature's energy is accomplishing the result or cure. This is the only rational explanation, and corresponds with the cures that nature is continually making in the lower orders of animals. If the recovery of the sick depended entirely upon the caprice and wisdom of the doctor, and not on the reparative forces of nature, the race would soon die out. I fully recognize the fact that the curative force can be stimulated; this may be done through the influence of nourishing food, alcoholic stimulants, a drug or medicine, or through purely mental influences. No physician can estimate how much merit he can accredit to the methods or substances he employs in any particular case that recovers, and how much to the lady physician, Dame Nature. This old lady doctor is ever active, and the most inert drugs, employed or administered with her assistance, have achieved wonderful cures; this the history of medicine confirms. The tar water cure of Bishop Berkeley is an illustration how an inert substance is capable of making for itself an enviable reputation for curing ailments, like pleurisy, pneumonia, erysipelas, asthma, indigestion, hypochondria, and other diseases. This remedy had the vehement indorsement of one of the greatest metaphysicians of the English-speaking world, and that the cures reported by him were genuine no one will doubt for a moment; but the bishop, like many of our day, was determined to have a remedy to cure disease, where none was required, but the mind had to be humored, while nature was actively repairing the disorder. To-day almost everyone is satisfied, that the virtues ascribed to tar water by Berkeley were a delusion, which was shared by all those who believed as he did.

The Weapon Ointment affords another instance where the credulity of the public was supported by abundant facts to prove the efficacy of the remedy, yet it was based on the wildest superstition. This ointment was employed for the healing of wounds, but instead of being applied to them, the weapon with which the wound was inflicted was carefully anointed and hung up in a corner, and the wound was washed and bandaged without the salve being allowed to touch it. This ointment created such a furor that eminent medical men indorsed its virtues as a healing agent. Another example of superstition and charlatanry was the equally famous Sympathetic Powder, which, when applied to the blood-stained garments of wounded persons, cured their injuries even when miles away. That dukes and knights vied with each other to obtain the secret of its preparation and ingredients is a matter of history. Instances of delusions on medical subjects could be multiplied a thousand fold, but they prove nothing but ignorance and superstition on the one side, and the inherent all-powerful curative force of nature on the other. While I wish to avoid wounding the fastidious and sensitive in the matter of their faith in their cherished system of cure, I cannot refrain from classing homeopathy as a similar delusion.

I am glad to admit at the outset that I have read Hahnemann's "Organon of the Art of Healing" with a great deal of interest and some profit. I am convinced that his theory of infinitesimal dilutions is as absurd and ridiculous as either the Weapon Ointment or the Sympathetic Powder treatment already referred to.

The preparation of these dilutions was directed to be carried out in a ceremonial sort of way. Chalk from an oyster shell, sulphur, charcoal, or any other substance, was potentized by taking one grain of the drug and mixing it with one hundred grains of sugar of milk. Of this mixture one grain was taken and mixed in the same manner with another hundred grains sugar of milk. This gave the ten-thousandth of a grain of the drug. Take one grain of this with another hundred grains of sugar of milk and the powder will contain the millionth of a grain of the substance, or the first potency, which forms the bases of other dilutions. This is reducing the doses of any drug to an absurdity, and Hahnemann was too brilliant a mind not to know this. It might be mentioned in connection with these dilutions, that if one grain of the most powerful drug, strychnine, aconitin, arsenic, or any other chemical that is known, is mixed with six hundred grains of sugar of milk, one grain of this powder, or the one six-hundredth of a grain of this substance, cannot be detected by any test or chemical reagent; or, in other words, the quantity of the drug or chemical contained is so small that the most delicate chemical test fails to show it; yet, in homeopathy, the dilutions are carried to the decillionth of a grain, from which important medical effects are expected.

Drugs are physical agents, and if they are diluted so as to destroy their chemical or physical properties, it is sheer nonsense to expect any physical result from them on the system. Chemical and physical facts conclusively prove the utter inertness of certain drugs either in themselves or in the manner in which they are employed, and the indisputable evidence of biological science demonstrates the natural curative tendency of nature observable in the lowest living thing to the highest, so that we should stultify our reason were we to arrive at any other conclusion than that the doctrine of this therapeutic creed is one of the most irrational delusions that ever befogged the mental horizon of a thinking being.

WHAT IS MIND CURE?

THIS subject has given rise to an endless variety of contradictory discussions, and while it has won for itself fanatical devotees on one side, it has been ridiculed on the other. This is not at all surprising, when an inquiry is made into the competency of the parties to the controversy. To be informed in metaphysical philosophy, or fully equipped in scriptural lore, but without a practical study in the art and theory of medical science, precludes the possibility of presenting the theme in a logical manner, or establishing a relevancy between medical science and mind cure. A medical education that is based on strictly physical characteristics of disease, as they are studied at the bedside, or in a microscopical laboratory, is equally inadequate; for the question of mind cure goes beyond the physical into the metaphysical, and not until the operations of the mind have been closely followed to the bodily or organic functions, can the intimacy of their relations be thoroughly appreciated. Medical men betray their incapacity for observation if they contemptuously dismiss the subject of mind cure by some superficial, disparaging illustration, for there is much more in the subject than is dreamt of, even in the mind of the average college professor.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet