EDITORIAL


Such an organization as is contemplated by the advocates of federalized medical control will be purely political in its scope and aim and as such will be carried on along the lines of the political spoils system where graft and special privileges will hamper the smooth and efficient operations of good medical service.


HOMOEOPATHYS FUTURE.

With the almost certain passage of legislation imposing some form of state or federal medical control over the nation, the practicians of homoeopathy and their numerous patients are faced with the prospect of oblivion and consequent serious loss.

There is no protective constitutional edict in behalf of medical liberty as exists in the case of religious freedom.

Unless the advocates of medical freedom, and there is a majority of such, if we include the non-medical cults together with many liberal “old school” practicians, can all get together to have incorporated into the proposed medical act a restrictive clause protecting the practicians of all methods of healing, insuring them and their patients the privilege of practising their special forms and acts of healing without interruptions from any source.

Indeed, there is urgent need of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the same sacred rights in the field of medicine and medical practice as exists in favor of religious freedom.

But until such time as a constitutional amendment for the protection of medical freedom and equality can be obtained there is need of organization and unity among all advocates of medical freedom in order to obtain the right to practise the art of healing of each group in accordance with its education and training and its belief founded on such training and education.

Without some specific clause in the body of a nationalized medical act, the homoeopathic physician will not be permitted to practise his art and his patients will be deprived of the specialized medical service that only a trained homoeopath can give. Also many individual physicians of the regular school will be compelled to practice their art contrary to their better judgment appertaining to a medical practice that is controlled and dictated by a routine standard of practice.

For a state or federal control of medical practice must be reduced to a more or less cut and dried routine denying the individual practising physician the valuable use of long clinical experience and individual initiative.

Such an organization as is contemplated by the advocates of federalized medical control will be purely political in its scope and aim and as such will be carried on along the lines of the political spoils system where graft and special privileges will hamper the smooth and efficient operations of good medical service.

The world of medicine has always been and still is in a constant state of flux and change built on the uncertain foundation of empiricism. That which is good today is soon discarded for something newer and better and this process is never ending, so that the judgment and conscience of the individual experienced physician is a safer and sounder thing to depend on for real help to the sick than the cold routine edicts of a medico-political clique far from the sick room or its patients.

Organized homoeopathy in conjunction with other organizations and individuals who desire medical freedom and equality can obtain the needed clause in any proposed medical legislation to safeguard the rights of all organizations and individuals.

Unless such organization is put to work to bring before Congress the facts just mentioned, every medical practician will be only a paid servant taking orders concerning treatment of the sick regardless of whether or not his judgment and conscience approve or endorse the same.

The physician will be helpless to appeal to any higher court for correction of mistakes or wrong conclusions or prescriptions he might be forced to make by the routine of a medico-political set up.

There are other things the homoeopathic organizations can do with profit. First, we must take steps to strengthen and protect our pharmacists; without their splendid work in our behalf our cause would suffer almost certain annihilation.

Secondly, each individual homoeopathic physician should seek out and train some younger medical graduate or graduates to succeed him in his practice. In that way we will be assured of no further decreased in our numbers, and we could leave young blood to carry on with the cause until such time as the Law of Similars shall be recognized and accepted as an essential part of medicine to be taught to every medical student in all recognized medical institutions.

That the time is near for such recognition, at least through the rediscovery of the law by another Hahnemann or scientist, is highly probable, because already many leaders in medical thought are experimenting with the claims of the homoeopathic law.

Rabe R F