In the light of his leadership and wise counsel; in the light of what we have learned since be left this legacy; and because of the great and growing influence of our branch of the healing art, I plead for toleration; for increased breath of culture and acquirement; for the careful fostering of the specialities; and for the thorough and adequate fitness of our physicians for their all-around duties and responsibilities. These are the industrial conditions of success and stability; and if properly and persistently applied they will surely demonstrate the vital relation that exists between Homoeopathy and the public health.
THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion on this address will be opened by Dr. I.T. Talbot, of Boston.
DR. TALBOT: When I was asked to speak upon the subject which has just been presented to you, I did not feel certain what there was to say, or what the direct line of argument in that paper would be, but as it went on there came so many thoughts that I feel myself equally incompetent to arrange them in the way that they should be to such an audience; but the name of Carroll Dunham and the memories of twenty-three years ago certainly thrills the heart of every one who was present at that time, who was a member of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, or who had an interest in this subject.
It was at a time when there were those who thought that they were right and all rest were wrong, and, in fact, there is that element in the human mind that thinks our thought must be right and everything that is different from it must be wrong; but it is going further than that to draw lines, to draw a creed, to draw those stringent bands around the Homoeopathic profession which should define a certain line outside of which they should not go; and it was the work of that one man, so noble, so broad, so exact, so painstaking in all his work, who never could be doubted of loyalty to Homoeopathy, that in that address, placed us on the platform that has given us progress, additions to our members and a liberty to go on in the work in which we are engaged. Now we feel that influence.
Our present position is also a somewhat dangerous one. When we were excluded from public institutions there was no danger of our committing any great offences, but the day is fast approaching, and has already come, when we are not only admitted but invited; and are we ready for it? Have we given that attention to the great work of public health, that as a body we should?
We cure our patients, we devote our time to them and it is a great work, but there is something even more extensive than merely attending to the one individual case, or the few that may come to us. The whole mass of humanity is influenced by certain conditions which it is our duty as Homoeopathic physicians to meet, to maintain the public health. We have already representatives on boards of health who do good work, and they will be on other boards, and in every state in this union we must have men and women prepared to do duty in the matter of caring for the public health.
One other paint I wish to speak on-our public institutions. There are, as you know, in Massachusetts, in New York, in Michigan, in Minnesota, and in California, institutions for the care of the insane. In the establishment of the institution in Massachusetts with which I happen to be connected it was a difficult matter to fine a man in the United States at liberty who would come to the won. That was eight years ago. It is true we did find one who did wonderfully well but the same difficulty accompanies every such State institution that is established.
Now it is for us to cultivate men and women who can take such positions when they are presented, and so be prepared to show that the Homoeopathic profession has been so trained of it, that at any time they may be prepared to take up and carry on these public works with credit to themselves and advantages to the whole community. The subject of public health is one so broad that we could also discuss it, and I am sure there are others who will have a word to say upon it, and give us an encouraging wood in meeting the duties that are to come upon us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Further discussion will be by Dr. McClelland.
DR. McCLELLAND: I had no idea of saying anything upon this subject this morning: but of course I take the interest which all of you do, in any of the ethical question that were brought before the Congress by the address of Dr. Ludlam. It is a finished and scholarly paper, touching upon questions that should occupy the attention of our physicians; they demand our greatest care and solicitude. The ethical questions are of importance, as for example, the suggestions therein contained as to the attitude which we should occupy toward the general practice of medicine. It is true that there is danger that we may become the intolerant party.
It has been made manifest to every one that the Old School of practice has modified its position very much of late years. We may say that we have won our position. It is also true that the younger men of the Old-School profession have no such feeling toward ourselves as that which animated their elders thirty or fifty years ago. Now while I say, and firmly take the position, that we should not lightly give up our attitude as a distinct school-that we should not sell out our birth bright for a mess of pottage; still it is true that we should recognize the fact that the Old-School physicians are making an effort in the same line as ourselves.
Now, one of the lines in which the schools come together ethically and otherwise, is that of caring for the public health, and I can assure you that it is a broad field, and Dr. Talbot, in his remarks has called attention to a very vital question in connection therewith. Our patrons expect that their representatives shall take their places in serving the public health.
Your patients and my patients say-“where is our doctor?” We hear of Dr. This, and Dr. That, looking after the general public welfare, but where is our doctor? Now, it behoves us to fit ourselves for the positions that are being actually thrust upon us. It behoves us to look into public questions and fit ourselves to occupy positions of public trust; for without doubt, we shall be asked to take our proper share in the exercise of colic conscience in connection with the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: The debate will be further continued by Dr. Conrad Wesselhoeft, of Boston, speaking for Dr. Carl Bojanus, of Russia, who is unable to speak English.
DR. WESSELHOEFT: I have the honor to represent our venerated friend, but it will probably very imperfectly convey to you his ideas on the subject of predisposition of diseases in regard to public health. He handed me last night three pamphlets pertaining to that subject. They were all written as late as 1874, and relate to certain atmospheric influence on public health, and were written by one Dr. F.X.H. horn, and at the time excited considerable interest, from the careful manner in which the subject was handled and the data adduced. I will give you, very briefly, only the upshot of the matter.
It relates to the production of ozone and yodosmone as products of certain chemical conditions of the atmosphere, or which were then, and I think are now, attributed to conditions of the atmosphere. The author goes on to show that the presence of ozone or yodosmone influence or predisposes nations and the people of the cities to diseases, particularly to the prevalence of cholera. These are broad statements, and may be based entirely on theoretical reasons which I cannot go into fully now; but when reading the pamphlets, I saw there was something in the subject which reading the pamphlets, I saw there was something in the subject which might influence everybody.
Ozone is formed under the high electrical temperature. Yodosmone is formed in the presence of low electrical temperature. We all know that the exists. And one scientific experiment was carefully made to demonstrate the presence of these bodies or gases, or noxious miasmata, as they are called. The effects of ozone and yodosmone are to produce nitrogenous combinations. That may not be exactly true, but the facts remain true that certain electrical conditions of the atmosphere produce predisposition to disease. That was stated in 1847 or earlier.
To-day the great question comes up, What is the cause of cholera? We have all supposed it was the cholera bacillus, just as the bacillus of consumption produces consumption, etc.; but it is beginning to be understood more and more that something besides the bacillus and its chemical products is necessary to produce any disease, and that the thing which is necessary is a predisposition, without which no bacillus can have any decided effect. It finds no grounds upon which to lodge. That is a theory, to be sure, but a theory not entirely without foundation in observation. You all know of the wonderful controversy that has been going on with regard to predisposition.
