For nearly four centuries mercury has been exhibited in the _Materia
Medica_ to a greater extent than any other remedy. Doubtless it possesses
great medicinal virtues, but its abuse--the "heroic doses" used by the
ignorant and brainless quacks, both graduates of some medical college, and
_soi-disant_ physicians--has made its name a terror to the people and a
reproach to the profession. To assail it is to tread on dangerous ground;
to invade the "rights" of a numerous host of worshippers; to uncover an
ulcer, whose rottenness, though smelling to heaven, is protracted for the
pecuniary advantage of the prescriber.
Eminent physicians in every age since its introduction, and in every
enlightened country, have protested against its abuse; yea, even its use!
They have called its users "_quacks_," the most contemptible epithet ever
introduced into medical nomenclature,--the "_Samson_" of the profession,
because through the instrumentality of an ass and his adherents, "it has
slain its thousands."
I need not quote those distinguished practitioners who have recorded their
testimony against its general and indiscriminate use. Their name is
legion, and every well-informed physician is aware of the fact.
Do not "well-informed physicians" prescribe calomel?
Certainly; but cautiously, and often under protest.
It is recorded of Sir Astley Cooper that he made serious objections to its
free use in the wards of the Borough Hospitals, and forthwith the "smaller
fry" made such a breeze about his ears that he seemed called upon to
defend, and even palliate, his offence. Dr. Macilwain says that Sir Astley
is reported to have said in reply to those who demurred,--
"Why, gentlemen, was it likely that I should say anything unkind towards
those gentlemen? Is not Mr. Green (surgeon of St. Thomas) my godson, Mr.
Tusell my nephew, Mr. Travers my apprentice (surgeon of St. Thomas), Mr.
Key and Mr. Cooper (surgeons of Guy's Hospital) my nephews?"
This was very _naïve_, and as good illustration of the value of evidence
in relation to one thing (his provision for his relatives) which is stated
in relation to another.
Herein Sir Astley exposed a weakness with which the democratic opponents
of President Grant have accused him, viz., of furnishing comfortable
positions for his relatives.
Sir John Forbes, when at the head of the medical profession of England in
1846, wrote an earnest appeal to his brethren to rescue their art from the
ruin into which it was falling, saying in relation to modes of curing
diseases, "Things have become so bad that they must mend or end." This was
"dangerous ground," and some physicians of the day feared Dr. Forbes had
done an immense mischief. After his death, be it remembered, some of the
"medical magnates" of this country virtuously refused to subscribe to his
monument fund, saying, "it was a misfortune to mankind (?) that he had
ever lived."
Dr. W. A. Hammond, surgeon general of the United States, also blundered
when, by an order dated at _Washington, May 4, 1863_, he struck calomel
from the supply table of the army. This proscription was on the ground
that "it has so frequently been pushed to excess by military surgeons, as
to call for prompt steps to correct its abuse.... _This is done with the
more confidence, as modern pathology has proved the impropriety of the use
of mercury in very many of those diseases in which it was formerly
unfailingly administered._"
_The American Medical Times_ (regular) said, "The order appeared not only
expedient, but judicious and necessary, under the circumstances." _What_
circumstances? Read on further, and the _Times_ editor explains: "No evil
can result to the sick soldier from the absence of calomel, however much
he may need mercurialization, when such preparations as blue pill,
bichloride and iodide of mercury, etc., remain. But, in prescribing these
latter remedies, the practitioner generally has a very definite idea of
the object he wishes to attain, which is not always the case in the use of
calomel."
By this timely order it was estimated that ten thousand soldiers were
released from a morning dose of calomel!
Was this a blow aimed at "quackery"? Was Dr. Hammond, "a member of the
medical profession highly esteemed for scientific attainments," attempting
a reform in medicine? Any way, Dr. Hammond shared the fate of all medical
reformers. He was suspended. He was disgraced.
The American Medical Association met at Chicago, and set up a strong
opposition to the "order." Certain persons brought charges against the
surgeon general. A commission was appointed. The _Times_ said, "The whole
affair has the appearance of a secret and deliberate conspiracy against
the surgeon general.... The commission is, in the first place, headed by a
person known to be hostile to the surgeon general. This fact throws
suspicion upon the _object_ of the investigation." Just so. The "object"
was to appoint some one instead of Dr. Hammond, who would repeal the
obnoxious order. No matter what _pretence_ was set up beside, this is the
fact of the case, and the people and the profession know this to be true.
But how shall we judge of the motives of Dr. Hammond but by _appearances_?
Who so well knew the value, or injury, of calomel, as he who had used it
for twenty odd years? Admitting Professor Chapman, of Philadelphia, was
within twenty years of right when he said, "He who resigns the fate of his
patient to calomel, ... if he has a tolerable practice, will, in a single
season, lay the foundation of a good business for life," did not Dr. H.
exhibit a little selfishness in attempting to deprive young practitioners
of the opportunity of laying for themselves a foundation for a prosperous
future?
"Doubtless," said a medical journal of the day, "all _quacks_ and
_irregulars_ are congratulating themselves upon the appearance of this
'order.'" This leads us to ask, "Who are the quacks?"
The governor of Ohio, in 1861, made inquiry of the United States surgeon
general, to know if the regiments of that state could be allowed to choose
between allopathic and homeopathic surgeons.
"_No: I'll see them damned to hell first_," was the gracious reply.
The resolutions drawn up and adopted by the New York Academy of Medicine
as an offset against the appeal for admission of homeopathic surgeons into
the army (1862), contained the following:--
"3d. That it (homeopathy) is no more worthy of such introduction than
other kindred methods of practice as closely allied to _quackery_."
There were then some thirty-five hundred of that sort of "quacks"
practising under diplomas--mostly obtained from regular colleges--in the
United States. Shame!
The Royal College, Dublin, the same year, in a resolution passed, called
Mesmerism and homeopathy quackery.
In an article in the "Scalpel," from the able pen of Dr. Richmond,--about
the time that the "swarm of vampires that was the first fruits of the
tribe of rooters that swarmed the State of New York under the teachings of
T. and B." (Thompson and Beach),--he calls botanics and eclectics quacks
and Paracelsuses! Clear as--mud!
So! The calomel practitioners are quacks. The homeopathics are quacks. The
eclectics, and botanics, and Mesmerics, are all quacks! Any more,
gentlemen? This is getting things somewhat mixed, and I rush to
Dunglison's Medical Dictionary for explanation. Why, a quack is a
_charlatan_! I turn to "Charlatan." Lo, it is quack! Clear as mud, again.
In my perplexity I consult Webster. He refers me to a _goose_! So I rush
to Worcester, and he implies it is a _duck_! Perhaps the _bill_ has
something to do with the name; especially as I am reminded of a suit
brought by a Boston M. D. to recover the exorbitant sum of three hundred
dollars for reducing a dislocation.
Therefore, summing up this "uncertainty," it seems to be a convenient
word, expressive of contempt, which any professional man may hurl at any
other whom he dislikes, or with whom he is not in fellowship.