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.)

    55/56
    And now, when I have written my summary conclusions, I shall have done. 1 have endeavored to illustrate some of the prac- tical points in Allopathic medicine, and to vindicate my posi- tions against the assaults of Dr. Thomson. With what success, the reader must judge. Having been invited to join in the war against the Allopaths, and to adopt Thomsonism—as the only rational theory of disease, I felt called upon to examine this Hhe- 0)vy.'>—The result of this inquiry is before the reader. Let him decide for himself whether he likes it. I have given it correctly, in the language of its own writers and speakers, and have referred to books and pages quoted from. The two errors—Routine and Book practice—which I sought to rebuke as wolfish intruders into the Allopathic borders, and which I besought our practitioners to drive out, have been claim- ed by Dr. Thomson as radical elements in his system. I charged this admission upon his first rejoinder, and if his own argu- ments do not prove it true, he, at least, admits it candidly in his second article. Thus we see that what is erroneous in Allopathy, is radical—elemental truth in Thomsonism. This constitutes the difference between the two. I think the reader will not have failed to perceive a striking contrast between Rational Medi- cine and Thomsonian Routine. But I will pursue this subject no farther. With this article ter- minates this controversy, so far as I am concerned. I regretted the necessity of having to expose such a hard featured system, but if, by this sort of disquisition, the public good has, to any extent, been promoted, I shall feel compensated for my services in assisting Dr. Thomson in his laudable enterprise of ventila- tion. CONCLUSION. Having taken a peep into the Sanctum Sanctorum of Thomson- ism, learned its origin and history; having studied its new doc- trines of theory and practice, and traced some of its marvellous (?) results; having satisfied myself that modern Medical Reform is the same as Samuel Thomsonism, originally, I have been ena- bled to arrive at sundry definite conclusions. I conclude not to affiliate with the Thomsoniaus. I conclude that there are already as many of that faith and order as there ought to be, for the good of the world—that there is not much in the whole fabric of Thomsonism, as originated, perfected and