Report as to the practice of medicine and surgery by unqualified persons in the United Kingdom / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty.

Date:
1910
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report as to the practice of medicine and surgery by unqualified persons in the United Kingdom / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty. 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.

    57/88 (page 55)
    In one small town it is saicl “ considerable harm done by bone- setters.” In another “ bone-setter carries on a considerable practice; joint troubles caused or aggravated by manipulations of bone- setter.” In a rural area it is said “ evil results follow the practice of bone-setters.” In five small towns, it is said “ No increase in number of bone-setters ; but a large number of persons visit Glasgow to receive treatment from a firm of American prac- titioners calling themselves ‘ Osteopaths.’ ” In one large town and four burghs, it is said “ bone-setters advertise themselves,” a clear indication that their practice is well known and wide-spread. In other four small towns, it is said “ Bone-setting is carried on ; untoward results from time to time.” In one County, with 20 small towns, it is said that there is “ practically no such practice except in regard to bone-setting. The practice of bone-setting is injurious if not to public health at least to public welfare. The people are well informed as to the status of unqualified persons.” In another small town, it is said “ bone-setting not uncommon ; as a rule no bad effects.” In another town, it is said that “ deaths have resulted in cases of tubercular joint disease treated by bone-setter.” In still another small town, the bone-setter is one of the “ chief offenders.” In another town, there is said to be “ an increase in number of bone-setters, harmful results follow.” In yet another small town, it is said that “ sometimes amputation has had to follow work of bone-setters.” Almost everywhere, but particularly in the small towns, the bone-setter is to be found. His practice must be very large and the observation usually is that it is frequently attended with danger. There seems to be no evidence that the bone-setters are increasing in number; but there is sufficient evidence that they are certainly not decreasing. 2. Counter-Prescribing by Chemists. This is a region of practice where the medical practitioner is frequently able to obtain direct evidence. No doubt, the practice is widespread; but it is not all of one grade. When a client asks for a particular drug and further asks for direction as to its use, no druggist would hesitate to give such directions as might be necessary. In many cases, for example, the case of Mineral Waters, the doses are indicated on the bottles and all the druggist has to do is to draw attention to the fact if requested. A client may purchase a Seidlitz powder ; he may request to be informed as to the best time to take it; he may ask for detailed directions as to the method of preparing it. From such relatively indifferent cases up to the detailed diagnosis of disease and special issuing of drugs, there is every variety of grade. In the reports by the Medical Officers of Health, there is no indication whatever as to what is involved by “ Counter-prescribing by Chemists.” Neither is there any indication as to specific evil results. Further, there is no indication as to how far medical practitioners themselves either act in association with druggists or themselves conduct a druggist shop. These are obviously matters for further inquiry. Counter-prescribing by chemists cannot be put on precisely the same footing as bone-setting, because in certain specific respects the