The Status of the medical profession in the State of New York / by Henry G. Piffard, M.D.

  • Piffard, Henry G. (Henry Granger), 1842-1910.
Date:
1883
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Status of the medical profession in the State of New York / by Henry G. Piffard, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    9/74 (page 5)
    cian of homoeopathic tendencies from practicing in that county. Fearing that he would in like manner be prevented from practicing in the other counties of the State, he gathered his friends together and, without much difficulty, procured the passage in 1844 of a law that deprived the county societies of their powers in this respect. This law, moreover, went much further than this, as it repealed the penal clause of the act of 1827 and vir- tually permitted any who chose, whether educated or not, to practice medicine in this State. This permitted quacks of all sorts and descriptions to ply their vocation without fear of molestation. This condition of affairs was maintained for thirty years, and there can be little doubt that this was the direct result of the injudicious action of the Orange County society, in- dorsed as it was by the then general sentiment of the profession throughout the State. Homoeopathy now had free scope to extend its influence, and, as the evils of sectarian medicine were most keenly felt in New York and Pennsylvania, these States were among the foremost to consider how they might be averted. The result of this consideration was the birth of the American Medical Association. It seemed probable to this association that the most effective blow would be given to the new-born heresy, if the pro- fession as a whole combined against it. It seemed necessary that the homoeopaths as a body should be absolutely excommunicated from profes- sional recognition and intercourse, and that the public at large should know it. In the code of ethics, and especially in the consultation clause, this sentiment crystallized. It was thought that the public, knowing that con- sultations were forbidden, would be afraid to intrust serious cases to the care of a homoeopath who might be scores of miles distant from a colleague with whom he might consult. This action was, to say the least, exceed- ingly unwise as judged from a purely medico-political standpoint. In those days the chief therapeutic reliances of the profession were bleeding, purg- ing, puking, blisters, and salivation. In contrast to this the homoeopath offered medication that was not unpleasant to take, nor, apparently, dis- turbing in its effects. Is it a wonder, then, that many persons, finding themselves but trivially affected and yet desiring professional advice, pre- ferred the milder to the severer medication ? Happily recovering, they felt emboldened to trust even severer cases to the homoeopath. The general profession, however, were blind to the teachings of these every-day occur- rences, and it was not until Andral demonstrated in the hospitals of Paris that no treatment was preferable in certain diseases to the methods in vogue, that medical men awakened to the fact that in many cases they were doing their patients harm rather than good. In England, Sir John Forbes learned the lesson, and endeavored to teach it to his countrymen. The reward he reaped was the scorn and hatred of his peers, and, after his death, the virtual adoption of his views (expectant treatment) by a succeeding generation. He simply taught that entire absence of treatment was often better than the heroic methods practiced by his colleagues. During these years the homoeopaths, despite