A treatise on the practice of medicine (Volume 1).

  • Eberle, John, 1787-1838.
Date:
1835
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A treatise on the practice of medicine (Volume 1). 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.)

    8/584
    the fanciful Hannemann; although when offered to his ac- ceptance as doctrines of universal application, he may very reasonably refuse his assent. It will be seen also, and perhaps by some regarded as a defect, that no formal classification has been adopted in the arrangement of the work. Nevertheless, the order that has been observed in the succession of the various subjects, is probably as natural as that obtained by any of the modes of systematic arrangement usually pursued in works of this kind. It is now generally, and very justly believed, that the artificial, classific, ordinal and specific distinctions of NOSOLOGY have an unfavourable influence on the progress of comprehensive and philosophical views in pathology. The primary elements of disease, like those of matter, are proba- bly but few in number. A few elementary modes of morbid action (if the expression may be used) modified in their general results or phenomena, by different grades of inten- sity, modes of combination, and the structures implicated, constitute the fundamental morbid conditions, of which the phenomena by which diseases are described, are merely the external manifestations. It is here that the unfavourable tendency of nosological distinctions mainly exists. Instead of leading the student to contemplate the morbid symptoms as the mere external expressions or signs of disease, modi- fied by various accidental circumstances, and especially by the structures chiefly affected, the artificial divisions of nosology are apt to lead him to regard the groups of symp- toms, usually associated, as so many distinct essences, pos- sessing fixed and specific peculiarities of character. To these objections, the arrangements founded on the particular structure primarily implicated in the disease, are not liable. It must be admitted, however, that correct and philosophical as such a classification may appear to be in theory, the attempt to reduce it to practice is attended with many very serious difficulties. Nevertheless, should another