A review of Homoeopathy, allopathy, and "young physic" / by L.M. Lawson.

  • Lawson, L. M. (Leonidas Merion), 1812-1864.
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A review of Homoeopathy, allopathy, and "young physic" / by L.M. Lawson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    18/38
    relates to the competency and integrity of the witness. As a gen- eral rule, homoeopathists arc disqualified on both of these grounds. It is certainly a very rare event to meet with one who possesses a sufficient acquaintance with the profession, to make a diagnosis entitled to our confidence. How far this objection can be ap- plied to Dr. Fleischmaun, is not certain; but it may be regarded as a general rule, with but few exceptions, that those physicians who are so visionary as to embrace homoeopathy, or similar de- lusions, have either an imperfect elementary medical education, or that their credulity so far outweighs the judgment, that but little reliance can be reposed in their statements. In view of these facts, it becomes the duty of a prudent inquirer, when pro- positions are made by persons of the above character, which con- travert common experience and observation, to exercise a rational scepticism, until the points are established by the most indubita- ble proof. To apply these principles to Dr. Fleischmann, we would say, that his avowed belief in such a monstrous absurdity as that of homoeopathy, and a declaration that infinitesimal doses have, in his hands, cured the most formidable acute diseases. will surely exert no small influence to invalidate his testimony. Dr. Forbes himself fully admits'that Fleischmann was mistaken in supposing that infinitesimal doses cured any of his numerous cases; and if he was wholly deluded for a series of years in hos- pital practice, what evidence have we that he was not quite as much mistaken on other equally important points? His testimony on this score, we are decidedly of opinion, should go for naught. In the next place, what can be said of the integrity of this wit- ness? On this subject we have no desire to be exclusively per- sonal, for we have really no knowledge of the author further than what can be derived from general circumstances, and we there- fore speak of the characteristics of the class. This whole ques- tion being placed in a dubious aspect, we are warranted in de- manding the most full and conclusive proof. In all instances where a fair and impartial trial of homoeopathy has been made, and the result correctly reported, the system has entirely failed. Thus, in Paris, at the Hospital de la Pitie, Andral put it to a fair test, but the results were entirely unfavorable. In Berlin, the government authorized professed homoeopathists to make trial of their system ; and in every instance they failed to cure their pa- tients. In Russia, where the homoeopathists were permitted to make extensive trials in a military hospital, for the express pur- pose of testing its success as compared with the common practice, the result was unfavorable to the infinitesimal system. After an extended trial of two months, it was found that homoeopathy was much less successful than allopathy, and the experiments were consequently ordered to be discontinued. At other places homoeopathy has been equally unsuccessful. Are we justified in the face of these facts, to admit Dr. Fleischmann's report on hi8