Publication information |
Source: Vegetarian and Our Fellow Creatures Source type: magazine Document type: editorial Document title: “The Most Recent Notorious Exhibition of Medical Fallacy” Author(s): Vibrator [pseudonym] Date of publication: 15 November 1901 Volume number: 6 Issue number: 2 Pagination: 37, 39, 41, 43 |
Citation |
Vibrator. “The Most Recent Notorious Exhibition of Medical Fallacy.” Vegetarian and Our Fellow Creatures 15 Nov. 1901 v6n2: pp. 37, 39, 41, 43. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
William McKinley (medical care: criticism); William McKinley (medical condition); William McKinley (recovery: speculation); George M. Gould. |
Named persons |
George M. Gould; Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.; George Henry Makins [misspelled below]; William McKinley; John Tyndall. |
Notes |
Click here to view a letter to the editor written in response to the editorial below. |
Document |
The Most Recent Notorious Exhibition of Medical Fallacy
It was a profoundly mournful week of tragedy
which occurred at Buffalo. But it has set a greater proportion of the people
of the whole world to reflecting on the methods pursued by the medical and surgical
men in the treatment of disease and injuries than ever before.
The belated explanation of the doctors that the
president’s early death was inevitable from the beginning, deceives very few,
but clearly shows what awful blunders were made. In the evident confused eagerness
to explain that the autopsy showed that no blame should attach to the treatment
pursued, the doctors have explained too much for their own defense; the contradictions
are so pronounced as to be pathetically absurd, and are absolute condemnation
of this latter-day learned ignorance and folly.
The injured president made the most gratifying
and rapid improvement for nearly a week after he was shot. There was, as there
still is, every indication that he would have made a perfect recovery, if the
absolute fast which was so wisely begun, with simple and copious water drinking,
had been continued for only a few more days. Yet it is just here lies the unfortunate
circumstance—this simple procedure would have made it appear that there was
nothing for the doctors to do, because in reality the President’s condition
required nothing but intelligent nursing and the cleanly dressing of the wound.
So the doctors, or some of them, became restive; it would never do to let the
world see that one of such exalted station could recover of such a dangerous
injury without some “medicine” and beef tea; these were therefore administered,
and the President was even told that he might smoke! Thus were brought into
operation several poisons to lower the remedial, i. e., the reconstructive,
force of the body. The mercurial poison, calomel; the effete and excretory poison
of an animal’s body, extracted in beef tea; and the nicotine of tobacco—these
were not enough to satisfy the dozen doctors who were, directly and indirectly,
in consultation; the president’s system could tolerate an even greater strain;
so solid food was administered.
Think of the condition of the body at that time;
a deep-seated injury; the alimentary tract perforated and requiring for its
repair the concentration of all the available vitality of the nervous system,
which, already, had been so much diminished by the great shock and injury. All
the other organs were receiving, therefore, the minimum of essential nerve control.
In this critical situation the stomach was not able to digest any kind of food;
it was inevitable that such would only remain and ferment—putrify [sic],
decay, and produce additional extremely virulent poisons. These quickly became
dissolved and passed into the circulating blood. The poisons thus produced in
the stomach and those also administered soon did their deadly work; a change
soon occurred and the untimely end rapidly came!
It will thus be seen that the usual medical routine
of treatment in all cases was well exemplified by the physicians and surgeons
who attended the president; but there is, in this noted exhibition of their
methods, an unusually well exposed array of the facts illustrating the prevailing
stupidity of the drug-giving fraternity. This makes this famous case a commentary
which greatly favors an easy, intelligent, understanding of the causes and effects
of medical drug-giving and feeding. Generally the varying proceedures [sic]
of medical attendants are secluded from public view and criticism; even the
patient and his immediate friends are usually kept in ignorance; the prescription
for medicine is written in unintelligible medical hieroglyphics, which only
members of the profession and the drug clerk are able to decipher; so that the
erratic, irrational, unintelligent, and ever changing selection and administration
of poisons is generally unknown even within the patient’s own household. But
in the case of the President, the surgeons were early so sure of his reserve
of vital strength and resistance that they frankly made known to the world the
tactics they adopted, feeling sure that, whatever they might be, he would rally
and recover.
Proof of this assertion is seen in the candid,
jubilant, confident editorials of medical journals which went to press just
the day before the bad symptoms first developed. There is no medical journal
more representative of the medical men of to-day than “American [37][39]
Medicine”; it is edited by Dr. G. M. Gould, for whom I feel a large degree of
admiration, for he is intellectually much ahead of the great mass of his profession.
His editorial dated September 14th, the very day on which the President died,
said of Mr. McKinley’s condition:
“Medical men will watch with traned [sic]
eye the rise and fall of the pulse and temperature, for those changes in the
condition of the patient which indicate the triumph or failure (!) of
our present day methods of abdominal surgery. The nation may be assured that
the care of its chief executive is in the hands of surgeons of skill and ability,
and may be confident that all that surgical art has attained and surgical science
has acquired, is known and utilized by them. Frequently it has happened that
an obscure citizen has received better treatment than a patient of exalted position.
* * * but such was not the case
with McKinley.” Gould adds: “President McKinley’s injury seems to be one
offering exceptionally favorable prospects of recovery. The location of
the wound in the stomach, where peristaltic movement is comparatively limited,
and less likely to spread infection which would produce peritonitis; the lack
of injury to the large vessels[;] the occurrence of the injury while in good
health and while the stomach was nearly empty, and the assurance of the best
possible nursing, give every reason for hope of rapid recovery. Even under the
unfavorable circumstances of the battle field [sic], Makin’s recent (book)
‘Surgical Experiences in South Africa,’ lead him to offer a comparatively favorable
prognosis in cases of wounds of the stomach. With the best surgical skill and
all the advantages of a well-equipped modern hospital, the prospects should
still be brighter.”
Yes! surely this was what was to be expected and
what should have resulted; but the superstitious folly of giving calomel, beef
tea, solid food, etc., changed all this most sadly. Quite prophetically, on
the same editorial page, he adds:
“Everywhere there has been rejoicing as favorable
progress has been announced. Situations can readily be imagined in which the
entire fate of the nation may rest in the hands of the members of the profession
which has for its mission” [so it endeavors to make the world suppose], “the
saving and prolongation of life and the alleviation of suffering.” But just
the very opposite of Dr. Gould’s anxious hope will follow this conspicuously
sad episode. He continues, “Perhaps out of this universal grief, because of
the acknowledged skill of the operators,” and because of the [39][41]
“experimentation that has within the past twenty years so advanced abdominal
surgery as to render, not only possible, but probable, the saving of the President’s
life,” perhaps, he says, “the profession may at last receive popular aid in
its efforts to perfect the science and art of medicine, instead of being hampered
by popular opposition to each successive step from those who will reap the benefit
(?) of every advance.”
But let Dr. Gould first prove any benefit and
advance, due to the idea of curing the ills of the body by means of poisons
and surgery. He certainly cannot claim such men as Prof. Tyndall, who have done
infinitely more for the elucidation of the facts of germ life, and atmospheric
conditions, than any strictly medical men. The investigators who increase our
sanitary, hygienic and biologic knowledge are not the practicing doctors, but
they are the Huxleys, Darwins, Leidys, Virchows, and often men who have abandoned
the practice of medicine. Even Dr. Gould admits that the improvements in the
results of surgical operations are due to the simple application of extreme
cleanliness, for which the medical world is so fond of using the Greek word
“antiseptics,” and which, as he says, has made recovery such a certainty that,
“were it not an every day occurrence, it would be considered miraculous.” Yet
is [sic] is a sad commentary on the present stage of the appreciation
shown for hygienic knowledge that most physicians and surgeons have less regard
for the importance of extreme cleanliness or antisepsis, than many of the enlightened
people outside of their fraternity; because these will not tolerate the practice
of making a septic condition in their system by putting into it calomel, quinine
the ptomaines of flesh, boiled into beef tea and other poisons! The profession
is never likely to receive that popular aid in the science and art of medicine,
which Dr. Gould laments, because the profession does not denounce the [41][43]
utter fallacy of putting poisons of any kind into the human body, as Dr. Oliver
Wendell Holmes did, and many other great and independent minds who have abandoned
the profession’s death-dealing traditions and superstitions. And there is another
reason why popular aid is not likely to be given to this profession, and that
is because of its overweening fondness for the use of the knife, instead of
resorting to the well-known and simple purifying hygienic measures.
It is becoming the prevailing belief of the intelligent
portion of the public all the world over that, with the least provocation of
pain, any organ that can be removed, without probably causing death, the majority
of the profession are ever ready to recommend shall be cut away. For pain in
the stomach, instead of advising a wholesome dietary, or the rational fast,
appendicitis is whispered and soon an operation is urged. If a lady complains
to her “doctor” of “a bearing-down feeling,” instead of suitable sexual habits
being taught, or strengthening exercises, movements, or bathing or repose, a
“major” or “minor” operation is asserted to be indispensable and the poor woman
is in danger of sacrificing the possibility of subsequent motherhood, as thousands
of young women have done before her.
It is very true that the profession contains some
men of noble instincts and training and some with great scientific knowledge.
But it does seem sadly rare that these important attributes are united in the
same individual medical man! Such a combination, however, is quite indispensable
to enable any doctor to faithfully and scientifically serve his community, his
country, humanity, as he should do. If a few such men, within the profession,
dared to raise their voices to remove the ignorance that curses civilization,
such a transformation in the health, happiness and ethics would result as all
the developments of mechanical and electrical science in the last century has
not secured. Consider carefully the influence of two plain facts of everyday
life; the average man smokes one ounce of tobacco daily, so say our official
statisticians. “Annually his family, which means in the main himself, consumes
seven and one-half gallons of spirits and wine, and not less than seventy-five
gallons of beer.” If this is startling, what would be the statement of the cost
of his other drugs—medicines? I have not figures available to answer; but there
is nothing more sad, pitiable, in all human life than the knowledge that the
poor and sick are spending their money year after year in the “drug store,”
with the credulous idea that the poisons they buy are “medicines” to help them
get back their health! It is proverbial that doctors do not take their own medicine;
and it is equally true of the druggists, also, for I have known many of them
both. Thus, by their actions as well as by their words (when talking confidentially
to their few favored ones) they expose their knowledge of the injury, deception,
which the ignorant are allowed to suffer at their hands. If the profession was
imbued with the sincerity, disinterestedness, magnanimity, which its members
so monotonously claim, they would in a single year convince the laity of the
folly and the injury of drug-taking. They would, in one brief year, rid the
world of the drug delusion and make all intelligent people understand that the
only remedy for sickness, whether from injury or wrong living, is the very same
means which will prevent disease—and that is personal and public hygiene—that
condition of cleanliness which is next to Godliness. Clean streets, clean gutters
and sewers, clean houses and yards and clean bodies; pure food and water; pure
air night and day; suitable exercise and the constant avoidance of poisons,
from whatever source and of whatever name, whether called medicines, tonics
or stimulants.
Members of the profession so actuated would possess
such self-respect and hold high principle in such high esteem that they would
cease to live parasitic lives, supporting their glory, display, and luxury by
the hard-earned and greatly needed earnings of the poor, the ignorant, the suffering;
but they would employ themselves in truly productive vocations instead.