The principles of the chrono-thermal system of medicine : with the fallacies of the faculty, in a series of lectures / by Samuel Dickson ; containing also an introduction and notes by William Turner.

  • Dickson, Samuel, 1802-1869.
Date:
1848
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The principles of the chrono-thermal system of medicine : with the fallacies of the faculty, in a series of lectures / by Samuel Dickson ; containing also an introduction and notes by William Turner. 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.)

    24/234
    Baillie, he replied, knows nothing but Physic; in revenge for which, Baillie afterwards wittily rejoined, Gregory knows everything but Physic. But what was Dr. Baillie's own opinion of his art, after all ? I do not allude to his language during the many years he was in full practice ; then, doubt- less, with the multitude who thronged his door, he really believed he knew a groat deal; but what did he say when he retired from his profession, and settled at his country-seat in Gloucestershire 1 Then, gentlemen, without the slightest hesitation, he declared he had no faith in Physic whatever! But, vou must not from this imagine that the fortunate doctor intended to say that the world had all along been dreaming when it believed Opium could produce sleep, Mercury salivate, and Rhubarb purge. No such thing: he only confessed that he knew nothing of the manner of action of these sub- stances on the body, nor the principle upon which they should be used. Now, what would you think of a sailor who had expressed himself in the same way, in regard to the rudder and compass,—who had told you that he had no faith in either instrument as a guide to steer a vessel by ? Why, certainly, that he knew nothing of the profession by which he gained his liv- ing. And such really was Dr. Baillie's case. The great bulk of mankind measure the professional abilities of individuals solely by their degree of reputation—forgetting Shakspeare's remark, that a name is very often got without merit and lost without a fault. That Baillie actually attained to the eminence he did, without any very great desert of his, what better proof than his own declaration ?—a declaration which fully bears out what Johnson tells us in his life of Akenside :—A physician in a great city seems to be the mere plaything of fprtune : his degree of reputation is for the most part totally casual; they that employ him know not his excellence—they that reject him know not his deficiency. But still, some of you may very natu- rally ask, How could Dr. Baillie, in such a blissful state of ignorance or uncertainty, contrive to preserve for so long a period his high position with the professional public ? This I take to be the true answer:—The medical art, like every other art, must have had its infancy—a period when, knowing nothing, its professors may fairly be excused for believing anything. When Baillie began practice, the profession were slowly and timidly groping their way in the gloom : a few practical points they of course knew; but of the true principle of the application of those points, they were, as I shall after- wards show you, entirely ignorant. Most of them were, therefore, very ready to follow any one of their own number who should most lustily cry out, Eureka—I have found it ! In the dark Ave mistake a pigmy for a giant, the more especially if he talks grandiloquently. That was what Dr. Baillie did. At the commencement of his career, few medical men opened the bodies of their dead patients; for Sydenham, the English Hippocrates, had long before ridiculed the practice. It was, therefore, all but in disuse, and all but forgotten, when Dr. Baillie published his book on Morbid Anato- my,—a book wherein, with a praiseworthy minuteness and assiduity, he de- tailed a great many of the curious appearances so usually found in the dis- section of dead bodies. Had he.stopped here, Dr. Baillie would have done Medicine some little service; but by doing more he accomplished less—more for himself, less for the public ; for by further teaching that the only way to learn the cure of the living is to dissect the bodies of the dead, he put the profession on a wrong path,—one from which it will be long before the un- thinking majority can in all likelihood be easily reclaimed. In the earlier part of his career, Dr. Baillie, it is only fair to suppose, believed what he wrote, though by his after declaration, he admitted himself wrong. His arguments, nevertheless, succeeded but too well with the profession ; proving the truth of Savage Landor's observation, that in the intellectual'as in the physical, men grasp you firmly and tenaciously by the hand, creeping close at your side, step by step, while you lead them into darkness, but when you lead them into sudden light, they start and quit you ! To impose upon the