an enviable success in life, has gained a fortune and the confidence and esteem of his community. This is an

example worthy the emulation of other young men.

CHARLES W. HOBART.

It may be well to preface an article of this kind, appearing in a literary magazine, rather than in a medical journal, with a word of explanation. Aside from the fact that it will probably reach the eye of an equally large or larger number of medical men through the columns of this magazine, than if contributed to any medical journal whose columns would be open to the discussion of a question involving the traditional formulated and accepted dogmas, precedents and teachings, of an inexact and defective system, of which they are the exponents, is also the fact that it is a matter of vital importance and interest to a much larger class the great majority-who would be as liable to see any sort of an article in the moon as they would in a medical journal.

The scope and design of the article being to reach and to interest the people, whom it vitally concerns, rather than the consideration of an exclusive professional subject, at once establishes the propriety of its publication in such a medium as will se

cure for it the widest attention. The proposition as stated, to wit:

That a reformation in the practice. of medicine, as understood and conducted according to the prevailing and hereditary methods, is a necessity, provided the desideratum is to make of it anything approaching an exact science, does not require an argument. The proposition is a self'evident one to any physician or person of intelligence at all conversant with the subject.

That great advances have been made in this direction, and especially so in surgery and collateral branches during the past two or three decades, does not admit of a doubt. The opportunities for such an advance were only equaled by the necessities demanding it; and that within the ranks of the profession have been found men endowed with the requisite ability, zeal and capacity to accomplish results relatively unsurpassed, if approached, in any other department of scientific investigation, is a tribute more eloquent than any that could be chiseled in marble, to a profession

the noblest and the most indispensible of all-whose scope is the widest; whose aim and object has ever been, and must ever continue to be, the most humane, the most sacred and the most loyal to the material welfare of humanity.

To the assumed inquiry from that large class who may have thought little upon a subject of equal importance to them, as to those who have more carefully considered the question, it may be well to briefly state some of the reasons why the practice of medicine cannot to-day claim any very near approach to being considered as an exact science as conducted and understood by either of the socalled systems or schools of practice, known and recognized as the "regular," or Allopathic, and the "irregular," or Homeopathic methods.

The two being based upon theories diametrically opposite in the cure of disease, it follows that both cannot be

correct.

The "regular" being by far the most ancient system; having existed for centuries, and to have constantly increased in strength and influence, as the Nestor of every advance, discovery and improvement of importance in the whole range of scientific investigation affecting the healing art; is that method to which we properly address ourselves in this discussionand the only school through which the practice of medicine can ever become an exact science or any approach thereto, so far as it may be

possible in the nature of things. That it still retains some of the hereditary elements of antiquity and of weakness, entailed upon it during its transition from medieval times and which the march of progress has as yet failed to eliminate therefrom, is an illustration of the tenacity with which we are prone to cling to the old habits and methods of thought and action— under the specious delusion, that what filled the requirements of our professional ancestors will answer very well for us. We should not lose sight of the fact, however, that this is an era of marvelous progress in all departments and directions, and that it is not in conformity with the spirit of the times that we should automatically follow where our predecessors have blindly led.

The definition of Homeopathy as given by German authorities-where this so-called system incubated within the memory of the oldest inhabitant, and where it is now but little more than a reminiscence, is as follows: "The art of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease." This method of practice, "Similia similibus curanter," which appeals to the palate and to the sentiment, rather than to the reason of the patient, may be said to have a distinct mission in pandering to the preferences of a certain proportion of mortals, so constituted that they can best appreciate that which no human intelligence can explain or comprehend, and thus harmlessly (by per

mitting the patient to recover, if the vital forces are sufficient to overcome the disease, as is the case in ninetyfive out of every one hundred cases of ordinary sickness) taking the place of some more deadly mysticism, possessing a more potent element of destruction. The glory and the insignificance of Homeopathy, pure and simple, is in its utter harmlessness and inertness-its sins being those of omission rather than of commission.

Let us then proceed to answer the assumed question-"Why is there a necessity for a reformation in the practice of medicine?"

We answer: because that under the therapeutics of the past and of to-day, and of the present method of prescribing, the practice of medicine by the prevailing methods can never aspire to the dignity of a well-defined. and exact science, and for the following reasons:

To fulfill the conditions requisite in the counteracting of diseased conditions, either in their incipiency or in their more chronic forms, if absolute certainty is to be approached, first of all the remedies employed must be of absolute strength, purity and reliability.

No physician of intelligence would for a moment risk his reputation upon a denial of this proposition, any more than he would upon the assertion that purity and reliability can be depended upon in the filling of his prescriptions through the ordinary channels.

The efficacy of drugs in the cure of diseases depends upon the amount of the active principle contained therein. The active principle may be an alka. loid or a glucoside, according to the nature of the plant. If it contains no active principle, it is inert as a healing agent. The amount of this active principle contained in any given quantity of any drug depends upon a great variety of causes, and of necessity varies greatly, depending upon the conditions under which the drug was obtained, to wit: The country or locality where the plant was grown; the time of the year in which it was gathered; the character of the season during its growth, whether wet or dry, cold, hot or temperate; the manner in which it was gathered, cured and cared for until reaching market - conditions with others upon which depends the quantity of the active principle therein contained, and therefore the beneficial, derogatory or disastrous effect upon the patient.

The drug, in course of time, reaches the retail druggists' shelves-whether it may be in its original condition. or after passing through the hands. of the manufacturing chemist-say in the form of root, leaf, bark, flowers, plant or powder, solid or fluid extract, tincture, elixir, syrup or any other obtainable condition.

The druggist, however competent he may be, can know very little regarding the purity, strength, reliability or efficacy of the drugs upon

his shelves, for the reasons above stated and the following:

At the time the drug is called for by the doctor's prescription, it may be ten weeks or ten years old, and during this time have been subjected to a variety of deteriorating in fluences, such as exposure to light or

the varying conditions of the atmosphere-extremes of heat or cold, moisture or dryness.

The chemical changes which take place in drugs, of necessity subjected to these varying conditions, cannot be estimated from month to month, or year to year; and in addition to this, when we also take into account the alarming extent to which adulteration is carried on through the rapacity of unprincipled dealers and manufacturers; the infinitesimal chance of obtaining reliable drugs or reliable effects therefrom, at once becomes apparent. The same prescription calling for different ingredients, filled to-day at one drug store, and to-morrow at another, will in the large majority of cases vary entirely in therapeutic effect, as nineteen out of twenty patients, who have ever tried the experiment, will testify. So that the element of exactness and reliability as between the doctor and the patient is almost entirely removed; and little besides doubt, guess-work and chance remains, however competent the doctor and druggist may be.

The patient is the one who assumes all the chances. The doctor receives

all the blame in the case of failure to give relief or effect a cure, and the druggist becomes opulent.

Another increasing evil and reproach to the prevailing method of practice-less fatal it may be to our patients than to our Code of Ethics -is the almost universal and indiscriminate prescribing of proprietary and patented compounds—mysterious in their composition and unreliable in their effects.

Surely this is a long step backwards in scientific medication, and one that all who are particularly captious regarding professional proprieties and eclat should especially frown upon with annihilating contempt and scorn-or adopt some better method of practice wherein such expedients are not found necessary.

The nauseating and repulsive mixtures which under our old practice is so often a serious hindrance to successful treatment, and a more serious reproach to our mode of treatment, is an abomination deserving only of obsolescence. It may be said that this is a consideration that should not enter into the question from a scientific, therapeutic or philosophic standpoint. Practically, however, it is of the greatest importance, and is the one consideration above all others that has served to foster and perpetuate other methods, systems and expedients of practice.

But were all other difficulties eliminated, preventing this desirable and

important consummation of scientific exactness as between the physician and the patient, the one fact of our encumbered therapeutics would be amply sufficient to advance the date of such an attaintment, co-equal with that of the millennium.

With some ten thousand or more recognized drugs, remedies and compounds to select from-good, bad and indifferent-need there be any surprise that in the treatment of a given number of cases or diseases, no two physicians, however competent they may be, without consultation, collusion or formulation, or the direct interposition of some occult power or influence, could, by any reasonable probability, treat the same case or condition in the same scientific (?) manner.

For each disease there are an end

less and constantly increasing number of remedies and treatments, advised and recommended by an endless and constantly increasing number of authors, writers and teachers, all alike positive and persistent in the advocacy of their own particular ideas and theories which may or may not have been based upon personal experience. Thus it is that confusion, uncertainty and skepticism naturally take possession of the inexperienced seeker after the best way, until by some process of reasoning. or election, or possibly in time, by experience, he forms an opinion of his own, which may or may not be of value to his patrons. We now come to the consideration of the remedyDosimetry.

J. EDWARD MACNEILL