Rational medicine and Thomsonianism : an essay on rational vs. routine and book practice of medicine, reviewed by Dr. M.S. Thomson and vindicated by J. Dickson Smith of Macon, Ga.

  • Smith, J. Dickson.
Date:
1859
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Rational medicine and Thomsonianism : an essay on rational vs. routine and book practice of medicine, reviewed by Dr. M.S. Thomson and vindicated by J. Dickson Smith of Macon, Ga. 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.)

    54/56
    same kind of debilitating tendency. But yet, it is an invigora- ting and sustaining system. They say they use no poisons—yet Lobelia is the panacea, and their own testimony criminates it as a violent, narcotic poison. We have already enumerated a number of other articles in their catalogue of medicines that are poisonous —according to the ablest and most reliable authorities on the ef- fects of poisons. They say they draw no blood, and yet they have surgeons who amputate limbs, and do various other cutting operations on human flesh? They say their remedies will produce certain invariable effects, and that they can calculate with al- most mathematical precision on such effects; but they permit their patients to go from their gaze. Bills of mortality show that their medicines are not infallible in saving life. Thus we see the character of the animal that has been flaunt- ing these vestments in all the security of seeming innocence ; and we plainly see that the animal is not worthy the vest- ments wherewithal he presumptuously clothes himself. Thomson- ism reminds me of the fable of the Man and the Satyr. It blows hot and cold from the same mouth. It obtains all sorts of effects from the same remedy. It is all things to all men. It is pre- sumption in any system of medicine to claim, or intimate, even, that it can cure all disease. Human nature is frail, and all human science must be correspondingly fallible. I think that Thomson- ism is wanting in candor, in not admitting its own weaknesses and fallibilities. We read of many noted 'Panaceas,' but experience proves them humbugs. Dr. Thomson ridicules the idea that the physician should be held responsible for the double duty of watching the remedy as well as the disease. We hold it in 'Rational Medicine,' to be of vital importance—an absolute duty. ISTo man should doctor me who did not feel the necessity of watching his remedies as well as my disease. But true to his faith, the Thomsonian cares not to watch the effect of his medicine, or even to see his patient at all, for he can prescribe for him at a distance, and on sound physio- logical principles (?) Now Dr. Thomson may as well employ himself dashing straws against the wind as to attempt to inau- gurate such doctrines with intelligent and rational people.