On some further conditions of neurasthenia : a psychological study / by Dennis de Berdt Hovell.

  • Hovell, Dennis de Berdt.
Date:
1887
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On some further conditions of neurasthenia : a psychological study / by Dennis de Berdt Hovell. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    4/38 (page 4)
    That Medicine is not an exact science is a fact. That it is not more of an exact science is, perhaps, a pity. The basis of a matter may be sound, but if the reasoning upon it be not correct, the conclusion will be as incorrect as if the basis were not sound. In that case the result, if successful, can only be accidental. In other words, if the cause of a disorder be either unknown or mistaken, and the treatment be either scientific or unscientific, then the cure, if any, must be accidental, or by a fluke; that is to say, by ciu'ved or indirect, and not by straight or direct means. But above all the medical profession claims to be scientific. To say it is not scientific, would be to the minds of many to insult it. Yet in the sub- ject which is being discussed it is not only not scientific^ but it is not reasonable, because it has in the first place referred a disorder of frequent, if not common, occurrence to a wrong cause; and, in the second, the treatment based on this Avrong hypothesis has been unsoimd. The want of a right understanding, and the jumping to a wrong, conclusion, have resulted in a failure almost universally acknowledged, and in a reproach which the patient has had to bear even more than the physician. The only redeeming point of the whole matter has been that the profession has acknow- ledged its failure; but it has been, nevertheless, unmanly enough to let the blame rest mainly upon the patient. Neurasthenia, then, has not been rightly imderstood or appreciated—first, because it has been eiToneously attributed to uterine irritation; secondlj', because the effects of shock—especially moral shock—have not only not been properly recognized, but actually ignored.