ARE DOCTORS MEN OF SCIENCE?

I presume nobody will question the existence of widely spread popular

delusion that every doctor is a titan of science. It is escaped only in

the very small class which understands by science something more than

conjuring with retorts and spirit lamps, magnets and microscopes, and

discovering magical cures for disease. To a sufficiently ignorant man

every captain of a trading schooner is a Galileo, every organ-grinder

a Beethoven, every piano-tuner a Hemholtz, every Old Bailey barrister

a Solon, every Seven Dials pigeon dealer a Darwin, every scrivener a

Shakespear, every locomotive engine a miracle, and its driver no less

wonderful than George Stephenson. As a matter of fact, the rank and file

of doctors are no more scientific than their tailors; or, if you prefer

to put it the reverse way, their tailors are no less scientific than

they. Doctoring is an art, not a science: any layman who is interested

in science sufficiently to take in one of the scientific journals and

follow the literature of the scientific movement, knows more about it

than those doctors (probably a large majority) who are not interested in

it, and practise only to earn their bread. Doctoring is not even the art

of keeping people in health (no doctor seems able to advise you what to

eat any better than his grandmother or the nearest quack): it is the

art of curing illnesses. It does happen exceptionally that a practising

doctor makes a contribution to science (my play describes a very notable

one); but it happens much oftener that he draws disastrous conclusions

from his clinical experience because he has no conception of scientific

method, and believes, like any rustic, that the handling of evidence and

statistics needs no expertness. The distinction between a quack doctor

and a qualified one is mainly that only the qualified one is authorized

to sign death certificates, for which both sorts seem to have about

equal occasion. Unqualified practitioners now make large incomes as

hygienists, and are resorted to as frequently by cultivated amateur

scientists who understand quite well what they are doing as by ignorant

people who are simply dupes. Bone-setters make fortunes under the very

noses of our greatest surgeons from educated and wealthy patients; and

some of the most successful doctors on the register use quite heretical

methods of treating disease, and have qualified themselves solely for

convenience. Leaving out of account the village witches who prescribe

spells and sell charms, the humblest professional healers in this

country are the herbalists. These men wander through the fields on

Sunday seeking for herbs with magic properties of curing disease,

preventing childbirth, and the like. Each of them believes that he is on

the verge of a great discovery, in which Virginia Snake Root will be

an ingredient, heaven knows why! Virginia Snake Root fascinates

the imagination of the herbalist as mercury used to fascinate the

alchemists. On week days he keeps a shop in which he sells packets of

pennyroyal, dandelion, etc., labelled with little lists of the diseases

they are supposed to cure, and apparently do cure to the satisfaction of

the people who keep on buying them. I have never been able to perceive

any distinction between the science of the herbalist and that of the

duly registered doctor. A relative of mine recently consulted a doctor

about some of the ordinary symptoms which indicate the need for a

holiday and a change. The doctor satisfied himself that the patient's

heart was a little depressed. Digitalis being a drug labelled as a

heart specific by the profession, he promptly administered a stiff dose.

Fortunately the patient was a hardy old lady who was not easily killed.

She recovered with no worse result than her conversion to Christian

Science, which owes its vogue quite as much to public despair of doctors

as to superstition. I am not, observe, here concerned with the question

as to whether the dose of digitalis was judicious or not; the point is,

that a farm laborer consulting a herbalist would have been treated in

exactly the same way.

The Doctor's Dilemma: Preface on Doctors · 第 14 / 52 题