Medical terrorism in 1862 / by William Bayes.

  • Bayes, William.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical terrorism in 1862 / by William Bayes. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    20/20 (page 20)
    with those of the celebrated logician who proved that an “ eel pie” was a “pigeon” He says that a “ surgical consultation” is a “medical con¬ sultation,” because a surgeon is sometimes called, in common parlance, a “ medical man !” Then he still hugs the idea that, if I had stated my belief in homoeopathy when I presented myself for examination, I should have been rejected. Yet he very well knows that I knew nothing about homoeopathy at that time, and, since that time* the law says distinctly, that the colleges shall “ impose no restrictions as to any particular theory,” on candidates. Does the Editor forget that the reason why Guy Faux did not walk over Westminster Bridge, was simply because Westminster Bridge was not built till after Guy Faux was dead. But, seriously, I thank the Editor for this admission : “ Dr. Bayes states what everybody knows, that he breaks no medical act, nor bye-law of colleges, in practising homoeopathy.” On this I am content to take my stand, and to ask my pro¬ fessional brethren why, if I have broken no law or bye-law, they treat me as a culprit ? They stand convicted of lawless¬ ness out of the mouth of their own advocate. In conclusion, let me bring to the remembrance of the better of my adversaries, the words of a great man when unlawfully accused. u For if I be an offender, or have committed any¬ thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die : hut if there he none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Csesar.” I too appeal unto Caesar—to that public opinion which has, in the present day, decided many and weighty points, and which has rescued many oppressed from their oppressors. And I have every confidence that their decision will favour the cause of liberty and of science. It rejoices me to see, as a sign of the times, that the Editors of .the “London Medical Review” and of the “Medical Circular,” openly express their disapprobation of the course adopted by the “ British Medical Journal,” while, in the pre¬ sent instance, both the “ Lancet” and “ Medical Times” have hitherto stood aloof and kept ominous silence. Cambridge, June 10, 1862.