ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

ESSAYS.

THE CODE.

BY G. M. DEWEY, M. D., KEYTESVILLE.

BSERVATION and, revelation have, in ages gone by, taught us that human nature was depraved; that man was selfish, and prone to seek his own interest to the detriment of his fellow-man. It might have been expected that education, refinement, culture, or broad ethical views of society, would have overcome narrow views and depraved tendencies. Especially should we have expected, that so philanthropic a body of men as compose the physicians of the United States of America, that no written rules or code of ethics would be necessary to control their actions.

But alas! it has been found that even in this semi divine art, there is so much of self interwoven in our natures that codes-rules of etiquette-are necessary to control recreant members of the medical profession.

can

I know it is said that a code of ethics is an infringement of human freedom-that no code of ethics make a gentleman of a jackal or a "dude "-that character is hereditary or congenital.

That none but gross sins can be reached by a code, and that those who do subscribe to the code daily violate its spirit.

As much may be said of a political platform of prin

ciples, yet no party can succeed without a platform; so a church, a written creed, or some rule of government would soon have all sorts of faith from paganism to Christianity.

From Adam to Moses there was no written code, and we learn things were run pretty loosely. The Lord saw we must have a code of ethics, he therefore formed one with ten distinct specifications, and he has never revised it. The code, as it relates to one another, was somewhat condensed by Jesus Christ, when he said: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." This would do for gentlemen, but we well know the medical sea is full of pirates, strange crafts, stranger flags are floating. We must unfurl but one banner if we would be known on all oceans.

The American Medical Association, in view of these facts, saw fit to have a few written rules called a code, for the the government of doctors. All the State and County Medical Societies in America have adopted this code. Some men, however, think this code of ethics too exclusive or restrictive as it countenances but one system of practice; that it had no right to arrogate to itself the title of being "regular," and thereby intimating that all others were irregular; that the so called Allopathic system of medical practice was the only true and scientific one. Our code is certainly acting on the principle that we are right, and all others wrong-that all other systems are heresies, delusions.

Our refusing to consult with or in any way encourage Homœopathists or Eclectics had its origin in the fact that we believe their theories heresies, and their practice inimical to mankind. We arrogate no more to ourselves than we are honestly entitled to. The so-called Allopathic physicians, the world over, are the inventors of all the useful appliances of surgery, the discoverers of all the useful remedies in medicine, and all the facts known in physiology and pathology.

We do not claim that medicine is an exact science. If

it were, fools could practice it as well as wise men. Shakespere did well to ask "Can we set knowledge against mortality?"

If Homœopathists believed their theories they would not consult with us.

We do claim that the principles and practice taught in our colleges are founded on physiological facts. We have, therefore, no right to countenance, or in any way encourage systems of medical practice directly opposed to our own. If diametrically opposite systems and practice lead to the same result, then medicine in its entirety is a delusion.

Have our New York neighbors come to this conclusion? It seems that in some localities, men who are an honor to the profession, feel themselves imprisoned by the code. Various pretexts or reasons are given, for relaxing the stringency of our present one, especially in regard to consulting with irregulars.

Various reasons are given for modifying the code. In regions where the emergency dodge is taken, I learn emergencies are epidemic. Another set of men claim that the spirit of the age demands a more liberal platform. This same claim is being set up by the same infidels in the Church against the Bible, and with quite as much reason.

Philanthropy, sympathy for suffering and succoring humanity; a kind of pseudo-fanatical reverence for an imaginary higher law, exercises some. Still conscience will not suffer these fellows to hold consultations with irregulars where there is no pay in it.

The Code, the Code, is in the way,
Whene'er the patient cannot pay.

I think it would be wrong to impute mercenary motives to these gentlemen who are so vehement for modifying the code, so as to permit consultation with irregulars. Still, I notice that the gentlemen, who favored this modification, all happen to live where Homœopathy is popular and encour

aged by the wealthy. Doctors who don't see any money in it, don't like to do it at all. Philanthropic doctors may all happen to live in certain districts, and emergencies come more to the rich than the poor. I fear we have got a small elephant on one of our hands just now. Last winter we urged our Legislature to appoint a State Board of Health, which, among other duties, should have the power to examine men as to their fitness to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics in the State of Missouri, and to grant licenses to any and all who were found qualified. This Board is to be composed of seven members, five of whom must, and all may be physicians. If I am rightly informed, no school of medicine shall receive all the appointments; but the three leading schools be represented in proportion to their numerical strength, as follows: One Eclectic, two Homœopathists and five so-called Allopathists.

Now, gentlemen, when a genuine disciple of Hahnemann presents himself for examination, how are the Allopathists on the Board to judge of his fitness to practice Homoopathy? Will their opinion of his qualifications not rest solely on the judgment of the two disciples of Hahnemann ? The Eclectic would deny he had any knowledge of Homoopathy. What do the regulars know about infinitesimals— about dilutions and sugar of milk; about shaking bottles with the stopper down to increase the potency, as Hahnemann taught? On the other hand, what would these small-dose gentlemen say, when told by a student of a regular, that twenty-grain doses of calomel or quinine were legitimate ?

A genuine disciple of Hahnemann would be a heretic who would sign a license for a doctor who would give a tenth of a drop of paregoric. Just think what a lonesome time the one Eclectic would have! But as Eclectic means choosing, he could preserve his integrity by choosing to black-ball all but the Eclectics.

This thing of licensing a man to practice Homœopathy is tenfold worse than consulting with one in "emergencies." I know the excuse set up by the inaugurators of

the bill to establish this Board is that they never contemplated the appointment of irregulars on this Board, but that it became necessary to do so to pass the bill. Gentlemen cannot fail to see that this is but the preliminary step to taking the New York "chute." Can any doctor on this Board refuse to consult with a man after he has signed his name and affixed his seal to a document, declaring the holder is qualified to practice the healing art in Missouri?

As well a woman may forget her babe,
As he the doctor that his vote has made.

We shall all be forced to consult with these licentiates, or else declare them bastards, illegitimately-begotten.

We'll cease to sneer, we'll cease to slur,
"Similia similibus curantur."

I suppose Homœopathic anatomy is similar to the balance of our race. So there would be no disagreement on anatomy. I presume the Homœopathic female pelvis has the same diameter as other women's; but whether the pangs of parturition are as infinitesimal and unappreciable as their drugs, may be doubted. I understand this new license law compels the Board to ignore all distinctions or a particular system of practice. I think the object arrived at by those who petitioned the Legislature to pass the law, making this board of examiners, has been defeated. Its tendency will be to license quackery instead of preventing it. If one system of medicine is as good as another, then our restrictive code should be abolished. If we rob the grave of no more victims than do Homoeopathists and Eclectics, then instead of consulting with them on "emergencies" only, we should abolish the code and practice that which would put most money in our pockets. Sailors say "It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good." This new license system will enable poor men, with more brains than money, to practice medicine in Missouri, undubbed by a medical college. The laity can have its choice of delusion:

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »