"Our objection to the old school," says Professor Curtis, "has ever
been, that they not only have no true principles to guide their
practice, but they have adopted, fixed, and obstinately adhered to
principles the very reverse of the true. They have resolved that, in
disease, nature turns a somerset--reverses all her normal laws, and
requires them to do the same. They have decreed that the best means and
processes to cure the sick are those which will most speedily kill them
when in health. In the face of all reason and common sense, they have
adhered to this doctrine and practice for the last three centuries, and
they have been constrained to confess that the destruction they have
produced on human life and health has far exceeded all that has been
effected by the sword, pestilence, and famine. Still they obstinately
persevere. They say their science is progressive--improving; yet its
progression consists in contriving new ways and means to take part of
the life's blood, and poison all the balance.
"Medicine, being based on the laws of nature, is in itself an exact
science; and every process of the act should be directed by those laws.
"Medicine is a demonstrative science, and all its processes should be
based on fixed laws, and be governed by positive inductions. Then, and
not till then, will it deserve to be ranked among the exact sciences,
and contemplated as a liberal art.
"Truth is stationary; it never progresses. What was true in principle in
the days of Adam is so still. To talk of progress in principle is
ridiculous. Neither does a given practice progress. That which was ever
intrinsically good is so still. To talk, then, of the progress in
principles of medicine is absurd. We may learn the truth or error of
principles, and the comparative value or worthlessness of practices; but
the principles are still the same. This is our progress in knowledge,
not the progress of science or art. The constant changes that have taken
place in the adoption and rejection of various principles and practices
have ever been an injury to the healing art. Both truth and falsehood,
separately and combined, have been alternately received and rejected;
and this is that progress which is made in a circle, and not in lines
direct. The fault of the cultivators of medicine has been, not that they
never discovered the truth nor adopted the right practice, but that they
adopted wrong principles and practices as often as the right, and
rejected the right as readily as the wrong. They have ever been ready to
prove many, if not all things; but to cast off the bad and hold fast to
the good, they seem to have had but little discrimination and power.
They say truly, that the object of the healing art is to aid nature in
the prevention and cure of her diseases; yet, in practice, they do
violence to nature in the use of the lancet and poison."
We are told by the professors of allopathy that their medicines
constitute a class of deadly poisons, (see "Pocket Pharmacopoeia;")
"that, when given with a scientific hand, in small doses, they cure
disease." We deny their power to cure. If antimony, corrosive sublimate,
&c., ever proved destructive, they always possess that power, and can
never be used with any degree of assurance that they will make a sick
animal well. On the other hand, we have abundant every-day evidence of
their ability to make a well animal sick at any time. What difference
does it make whether poisons are given with a scientific or an
unscientific hand? Does it alter the tendency which all poisons possess,
namely, that of rapidly depriving the system of vitality?
The veterinary science was ushered into existence by men who practised
according to the doctrines of the theoretical schools. We may trace it
in its infancy when, in England, in the year 1788, it was rocked in the
cradle of allopathy by Sainbel, its texture varying to suit the skill of
Clark, Lawrence, Field, Blaine, and Coleman; yet with all their amount
of talent and wisdom, their pupils must acknowledge that the melancholy
triumph of disease over its victims clearly evinces that their combined
stock of knowledge is insufficient to perfect the veterinary science.
Dr. J. Bell says, "Anatomy is the basis of medical skill;" yet, in
another part of his work he says, "It enables the physician to
GUESS _at the seat, or causes, or consequences of disease_!"
This is what we propose hereafter to call the science--the science of
guessing! If such is the immense mortality in England, (amounting, as
Mr. Youatt states, in loss of cattle, alone, to $50,000,000,)--a country
that boasts of her veterinary institutions, and embraces within her
medical halo some of the brightest luminaries of the present
century,--what, we ask, is the mortality in the United States, where the
veterinary science scarcely has an existence, and where not one man in a
hundred can tell a disease of the bowels from one of the lungs?
Profiting by the experience of these men, we are in hopes to build up a
system of practice that will stand a tower of strength amid the rude
shock of medical theories. We have discovered that the lancet is a
powerful depressor of vitality, and that poisons derange, instead of
producing, healthy action. That they are generally resorted to in this
country, no one will deny, and often by men who are unacquainted with
the nature of the destructive agents they making use of.
Hence our business, as reformers, is to expose error, and disseminate
true principles. In doing so, we must be guided by the light of reason,
and interpret aright the doctrines of nature as they are written by the
Creator on the tablets of the whole universe, animate and inanimate.
In our reformed practice, we have true principles to guide us, which no
man can controvert; for they are based on the recognition of a curative
power in nature, identical with the vital principle, and governed by the
same laws that control its action in the healthy state. While,
therefore, this system must not change, it may improve; and while it
remains on the same foundation, it should progress.
The necessity of aiding nature, in all our modes of medication, is the
only true principle which should guide us. This we do by the aid of
medicines known to be harmless, at the same time paying proper attention
to diet, ventilation, exercise, &c., rejecting all processes of cure
that depress the vital energy, or destroy the equilibrium of its action.
Our reformed principles teach us that, "Fever is the same in its
essential character, under all circumstances and forms which it
exhibits. The different kinds, as they are called, are but varieties of
the same condition, produced by variations in the prevailing cause, or
the strength of vital resistance, or some other peculiarity of the
patient. Facts in abundance might be stated to justify this position.
Again, fever is not to be regarded as disease, but as a sanative effort;
in other words, as an increased or excited state of vital action, whose
tendency is to remove from the system any agents or causes that would
effect its integrity. Or, perhaps, it might be more properly said, that
fever is the effect, or symptom, of accumulated vital action--an index
pointing to the progress of causes, operating to ward off disease and
restore health.
"Our indications of cure and modes of treatment are to be learned from
those manifestations of the vital operations uniformly witnessed in the
febrile state. If fever marks the action of the healing power of nature,
which we must copy to be successful, why should we not consult the
febrile phenomena for our rule of action? Now, what are the indications
of cure which we derive from this source? In other words, what are the
results which nature designs to accomplish through the instrumentality
of fever? They are, an equilibrium of the circulation, a
properly-proportioned action of all the organs, and an increased
depuration of the system, principally by cutaneous evacuations."
Suppose the resistance of some local obstruction, as, for example, an
accumulation of partly digested food in the manyplus of the ox, and, for
want of a due portion of the gastric fluids to soften the mass and
prevent friction, it irritates the mucous covering of the laminae. The
result is inflammation, (local fever,) then general excitement,
manifested in an increased state of the circulation generally. The
consequences of this general excitement of the mass of the circulation
are, a more equal distribution of the blood, and the stimulation of
every organ to do a part, according to its capacity, in removing
disease. In such cases, the cattle doctors, generally, suppose that the
inflammation is confined to the part, (manyplus;) yet it is evident that
nature has marshalled her forces and produced a like action on the
external surface. How can we prove that this is the case? By the heat,
and red surfaces of the membrane lining the nostril, by the accelerated
pulse, thirst, &c. Without heat there is no vitality in the system. Now,
if the surface be hot, it proves that a large quantity of blood is sent
there for the purpose of relieving the deranged internal organ. Hence
the reader will perceive, that the cattle doctor whose creed is, "The
more fever, the more blood-letting," must be one of the greatest
opponents nature has to deal with. Then it is no wonder that so many
cattle, sheep, and oxen die of fever. The practice of purging, in such a
case, would be almost as destructive as the former; for many articles
used as purges act on the mucous surfaces of the alimentary canal as
mechanical irritants. Nature would, in this case, have to recall her
forces from the surface, and concentrate them in the vicinity of parts
where they were not wanted, had not man's interference conflicted with
her well-planned arrangement, and made her "turn a somerset." When the
increased action and heat are manifested on the surface, does it not
prove that the different organs are acting harmoniously in self-defence?
And is not this action manifested through the same channels in a state
of health? Then why call it _disease_?
If obstructions exist as the cause of fever, will the mode of evacuation
be different from that of health? Certainly not. Hence the marked
tendency of fever to evacuation by the skin or the bowels; the former by
perspiration, and the latter by diarrhoea. Fever, then, is a vital
action, and the reformers have correct principles. On the other hand,
the allopathists tell us that they know very little about fever, but
that it is disease, and they treat it as such; hence, then, five, ten,
and fourteen days' fever, and often the death of the patient.
Our treatment is not directed with a view of combating the fever: we
generally aid it by following the indications which it presents; and we
often find it necessary, although the surface of the animal shall be
hot, and feverish symptoms appear, to use stimulants, (not alcoholic,)
combined with antispasmodics and relaxants. (See _Stimulants_, in the
APPENDIX.) This class of medicines, aided by warmth and
moisture, favors the cutaneous exhalation, and promotes the free and
full play of all the functions.
That the allopathist has but few principles to guide him is evident from
the following quotations:--
Veterinary surgeon Haycock says, "The profession may flatter itself that
it is advancing: for my part, however, I see little or no advancement.
Our labors, for the last ten years, have been little more than a
repetition of what has gone before. Our books are things of shreds and
patches; the system which is followed in the investigation of disease,
in the treatment of disease, and in the reporting of it, is altogether
so crude and barbarous, that I am thoroughly ashamed of the whole
matter.
"I have heard much noise about a _charter_, [which, we presume, means a
charter by which men may be licensed to kill _secundum artem_, and '_no
questions_ ASKED,'] the clamor of which may be compared to the
rattling of peas in a dried bladder, or to a storm in a horse-pond. I
have also read much which has been said about the _spirit_ of this
charter. Until I am convinced that it is the best term which can be
applied to it, verily the whole is a spirit; for no one, I am persuaded,
has ever yet discovered the substance.[3] It is not charters that we
want, _but it is that quiet spirit of earnestness which characterizes
the true laborer on science_. We require men who will labor for the
advancement of the profession from the pure love of the thing; we want,
in fact, a few John Fields, or men who know how to work, and who are
possessed of the will to do it."
We hear a great deal said about sending young men from this country to
Europe to acquire the principles of the veterinary art, with a view to
public teaching. Now, it appears to us that the United States can boast
of as great a number of talented physicians, as well qualified to soon
learn and understand the fundamental principles of the veterinary art,
as their brethren of the old world. There is no country, probably, that
can boast of such an amount of talent, in every department of
literature and art, in proportion to the population, as the United
States. We know that the veterinary art, with one exception, had its
existence from human practitioners, received their fostering care and
attention, and grew with their growth. Have we not the materials, then,
in this country, to educate and qualify young men to practise this
important branch of science? Most certainly. Just send a few to us, for
example, and if we do not impart to them a better system of medication
than that practised in Europe, by which they will be enabled to treat
disease with more success and less deaths, then we will agree to "throw
physic to the dogs," and abandon our profession.
The greatest part of the most valuable time of the students of
veterinary medicine is devoted to the study of pathology, in such a
manner as to afford little instruction. For example, we are told that in
"Bright's" disease of the kidneys they have detected albumen. What does
this amount to? Does it throw any rational light on the treatment other
than that proposed by us, of toning up the animal, and restoring the
healthy secretions? They have studied pathology to their hearts'
content; yet any intelligent farmer in this country, with a few simple
herbs, can beat them at curing disease. We would give details, were it
necessary. Suffice it to say, that it is done here every day, and often
through the aid of a little thoroughwort tea, or other harmless agent.
The pathologist may discover alterations in tissues, in the blood, and
the various organs, and tell us that herein lie the cause and seat of
disease; yet these changes themselves are but results, and preceding
these were other manifestations of disorder; therefore pathology must
always be imperfect, because it is a science of consequences.
The most powerful microscopes have been used to discover the seat of
disease; yet this has not taught us to cure one single disease hitherto
incurable.
The old school boast that their whole system of blood-letting, purging,
and poisoning is based on _enlightened experience_! yet their victims
have often discovered, by dear-bought "experience," (_many of whom are
now doing penance with ulcerated gums, rotten teeth, and foetid breath_,)
that, however valuable this "experience" may be to the M. D.'s, they,
the recipients, have not derived that benefit which they were led to
expect would accrue to them. From what has already been written in this
work, the reader, provided he divests himself of all prejudice, will
perceive that allopathic experience is not to be trusted, for their
principles are false; hence their experience is also false. Professor
Curtis, to whom we are indebted for much valuable information, says, "Do
not the old school argue that the most destructive agents in nature may
be made to '_aid the vital forces in the removal of disease_ by the
judicious application of them'? Does not Professor Harrison say, that
the lancet is the great anti-inflammatory agent of the _materia medica_,
that opium is the _magnum Dei donum_ (the great gift of God) for the
relief of pain, and that mercury is the great regulator of all the
secretions?"
Anatomy and physiology are now being taught in our public schools. The
people will, ere long, constitute themselves umpires to decide when
doctors disagree. We apprehend it will then be hard work to convince the
intelligent and thinking part of the community that poisons and the
lancet are sanative agents.