T. M. DILLINGHAM, M. D.
There is no question as to what Homoeopathy means with the members of this society, but among the physicians who consider themselves homoeopaths because they are members of a country or State society, there is most certainly lamentable ignorance as to how so-called gynecological cases should be treated by any person who claims the name of a homoeopath.
This fad has run such riot among the allopathic school, and the people are so impressed with the necessity of having “something done” that one is often at his wit’s end as to how he can keep his patients from openly or secretly going to a specialist, who is supposed to know so much and who so often knows nothing except how to hold his patients.
Some of our school go so far as to say a speculum should never be used, and while there is a strong argument for this idea of the question, such an assertion is, i believe, the result of indignation at its persistent and undeniable abuse.
There is no more objection to the proper examination of a patient in one part of the body than another, and while diagnosis and prognosis may not be, and are not necessary to a cure, in very many instances they enable us to conduct the case in hand in a much more satisfactory manner, especially to the patient.
The ignorance and false modesty of some women is as provoking as the frankness and true modesty of others is pleasing, and the simple fact remains that we cannot depend upon what is usually told us in regard to the location of the annoyance and the character of the discharge in this class of cases.
In unmarried women an examination is usually unnecessary, almost always if her friend will let you and your patient alone; but in married women, especially those who have borne children, an examination is as often necessary, if they complain of severe distress in the uterine region.
I have recently seen a woman, of a large family, who, since her first child, has been a great sufferer from prolapsus. The vaginal and uterine discharges which this condition produced were treated for years by her allopathic attendant without a proper and intelligent examination, which would have revealed to him nearly complete rupture of the perineum with laceration of the vaginal wall.
I was called to see an unmarried woman more than a year since. The miserable general condition of the woman could not account for her distress during menstruation, nor the painful menstruation for the general disturbance. Careful prescribing gave her great relief from the suffering she had experienced under the allopathic school, but I was not satisfied and insisted on an examination which revealed a tumor as large as a teacup in the right fallopian tube. I advised removal, if after a year’s treatment her condition is not so much improved that the tumor may be let alone.
A woman nearly forty-three years of age is now under my care, who since she was sixteen has carried an ovarian tumor. Her physician, a most conscientious man, promised to cure it, and her life has been spent in doing nothing but watching and waiting for its disappearance. Twenty, certainly fifteen years ago, the operation for the removal of this tumor had reached such a state of perfection that it should have been removed by the knife.
Two cases recently came to my notice, a young unmarried woman from a mongrel homoeopath, and a young married woman from an allopath. Both were suffering from profuse leucorrhoea, backache, headache, etc., etc., and the miserable local treatment was practically the same.
The unmarried woman came with her mother and requested an examination, which was made, and their curiosity satisfied, my diagnosis being the same as that of the mongrel. I explained the danger of injections, showing how the fluid could pass into the womb and even into the fallopian tubes, producing an inflammation there from which she might never recover until Tait’s operation removed them. Mr. Tait assured me that there was no doubt but what two-thirds of the cases of salpingitis that came to him were caused by vaginal injections, and he denounces them in unrestrained terms.
This young woman suffered from headache only when she went to the mongrel. Failing to cure them he declared the cause to be in the womb and commenced the dangerous and uncalled for treatment, and brought on a host of symptoms which made her an invalid half her time. I am pleased to say that she has improved, and at her last visit told me she had not been as well for years, and that work is once more a real pleasure.
The married woman suffered pain with menstruation, and of course her allopathic doctor resorted to “trade methods.” She never had leucorrhoea until she took the douches, and it was now so annoying that she resorted to them several times every day. In that case I refused to make any sort of an examination-for she had never borne children-except of her subjective symptoms for the selection of the remedy.
I desired, also, to appear as to my method, different in every respect to her allopathic advisor. She is discharged cured, not only of the leucorrhoea but also of the menstrual discomfort.
One dose of Pulsatilla, one dose of nux vom. and one dose of Sulphur, all in the cm. of Swan, did the work.
I could easily give a dozen more of such cases that have come under my observation this winter.
The most dangerous man in the community-barring the rumseller-is the “gynecologist;” but both are necessary evils so long as allopathy exists, which will not be another hundred years.
A mistaken idea prevails as to the length of time these men take to finish a course of treatment. After Emmet’s operation on the cervix, three to five months is required in the best cases. Tait wants two years to pass before a patient should expect to get the full benefit of his operation for salpingitis.
Local applications and vaginal injections are continued for months at least, and often for years, with an occasional intermission of a few weeks. A large number of women come to New York (and every other city, I presume) spring and fall for their bonnets and local treatment. Our law comes in here, as in every other case, and the fact is, that disease, no matter where its location, should never be treated locally.
Bilroth says, “The medicine of the future will be largely surgical.” We say the surgery of the future will be largely medicinal, and under the law of cure, for surgery cannot cure, it can only remove the product of disease. It is applicable as a rule only to accidents and the results of accidents. We must instruct our patients with comparisons and facts from every source, and be familiar with the methods and results of all Schools of Medicine.
It behooves us also to show as much energy and enthusiasm and persistency in doing the right thing for our patients as the allopaths and mongrels do in doing the wrong thing.
