ECLECTICISM vs. ALLOPATHY,

BY

E. MELYIN McPHERON, M. D.,Formerly Professor of Diseases of the Eye and Ear, and Demonstrator of

Anatomy in Eclectic Medical Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio ; Member ofthe National Eclectic Medical Association; Ohio State Eclectic

Medical Association; Cincinnati Eclectic Medical Society;Colorado State Eclectic Medical Association; Denver

Eclectic Medical Society, Etc., Etc.

Reprint from the Eci.ECTic HEai/th Journal, June, 1592.

SALT LAKE CITY:

ACKERMAN PRINTING COMPANY.1592.

Bt Dr. E. M. McPheron, Denver, Colo.

in Medicine is one ofthe numerous phases of progress in

the domain of modern scientific thought.The history of this medical reform datesback only a few more than fifty years,though the causeswhich gave rise to themovement were operative long prior toits inception. At difflerent times duringthe early centuries of the Christian erathere were physicians,dissenting from thegenerally accepted doctrines of the thenexisting schools, who styled themselvesEclectics, though little seems to havebeen accomplished by such endeavors,and it has been reserved to our own en-lightened age to consummate the nobleaspirations of those early reformers.Eclectic is a word of Greek origin andsignifies, ‘‘l select.” The most import-ant application of the word has been inthe domain of philosophy where it hasbeen applied to a class of philosophers,who were not content with doctrines ofany existing school, but who constructeda system of philosophy of their own byselecting from the doctrines of schoolsthose which were most nearly in harmonywith truth and reason, rejecting thosewhich seemed fallacious, and supplyingthose necessary to make their systemcomplete. Eclectic philosophers did notignore the existence, nor minify the im-portance of that which was true in theother philosophies, thoughthey regardedevery existing system as incomplete anddarkened by much that was fallacious,and labored with a sincerity of purposeifprithe construction of a system which

should contain the maximum of truth andthe minimum of falsity.

It would be interesting and instructiveto record, some of the more importantresults accomplished by the earlyEclectic

thoughreference to a fewof those of more modern times will suf-fice in this connection. For twenty cen-turies prior to the birth of Copernicusthere had existed multiple diverse andconflicting theories, concerning the rela-tive position, importance and movementsof the planetary bodies. Astronomerswere divided in their opinions on thesematters, some teaching that the earthwas the center of the universe, andothers that the sun was the centeraround which all the other heavenlybodies moved. Copernicus carefullystudied the various theories then currentconcerning the planetary system. Hediscovered that each of these theoriescontained much that was true, and thateach was imperfect because of the de-monstrable fallacies which were incor-porated in each. He at once set to workto construct a system of astronomywhich should contain all that was true inall the others without that which wasfallacious. The result of this reform isthe Coperuican theory of the universe, atheory widen has withstood the scrutinyof scientific observation for nearly fourhundred years. When William Harveyrejected the theory, in the sixteenth cen-tury which had been current up to histime, that the principal function of thearteries in the body was that of air tubes,and substituted his own, that the arter-

ies were vessels throughwhich the bloodcirculates, he was acting from a trulyeclectic spirit. The science of botany, asit exists at the present time, is purely ec-lectic in its origin. It is the classificationof Jussieu as constructed by him duringthe latter part of the 18th century. Herejected the classification of Caesalpinus,Kay, Morrison, Rivinus, Tournefort andLinnaeus, not as being wholly false, butas being very imperfect. Erom hispredecessors he selected what w Tas true,to which he added the results of his ownlabors, thus giving us the first completeclassification of plant life. Many moreexamples might be adduced to show thatthis principle of selection, as implied bythe word Eclectic, has been the one bywhich the various sciences have beenbrought to their high stateof perfection.Eclecticism in medical science is a re-form movement similar in its intent tothe eclecticism of the older philoso-phers .

It is not destructive in its tendency,as lias been often charged, save when theobject upon which it becanfe operativewas based upon error, and then it hasnot acted like a madman by simply tear-ing down, but it has overthrown that itmight build better. It has not ignoredthe existence of other systems of medi-cine, neither has it disregarded therational and true in such systems, but,as with'tthe older philosophies, it has re-garded the other systems as imperfectand incomplete, and has sought with anequal sincerity of purpose to construct asystem in harmony with the highestdictates of reason, and in keeping withthe principles of humanitarianisra. Ithas cheerfully acknowledged the fact,that there was much that was true in theother systems, and boldly asserted thatin them was much that was fallaciousand destructive. With this condition ofmedical science it has dealt honestly andwithout prejudice, in the constructionof a system which should contain thebest in all others, without that which isfalse and harmful. It has not been con-tent simply to compile the best from allother systems, but it has merited for it-self distinction by its careful and untir-ing investigation of the medicinal virtuesof the vegetable kingdom. The medicalproperties of the majority of vegetableremedies now in use (and they constitutethe greater number of medicines used byall schools,) have been discovered and

introduced into practice by the reformschools of medicine. Eor this, Eclecticphysicians are often called Botanies,though the name is misused in this con-nection. The charge is often madeagainst Eclectics by the ignorant and un-scrupulous that they are averse to, anddo not use, any medicines from the min-eral kingdom. The accusation is with-out truth as any one may be convincedby a perusal of our literature. We doclaim to make a more extensive use ofvegetable remedies and a less extensiveuse of mineral agents than the physi-cians of the allopathic school. Thisdifference does not arise from a preju-dice against the proper use of mineralagents, but because experience hasshowm that vegetable remedies are equal,or more efficient for the same purposes,and are attended by less danger in theiradministration. It is not to be inferredfrom this that they are impotent in theiraction when taken into the stomach, formany of them are active poisons, andmay be made to do irreparable injury ifimproperly used. What is claimed forthem is that as a class they are morepalatable, are less dangerous in theiraction upon the organism, and are moreefficient for good.

Exception is taken by many to theword Eclectic as applied to this school,claiming that the principle w7 hich itsignifies, is not permissible in medicalscience.

The adherents of the school are notwholly content with it, though it morenearly, than any other, embodies theprinciple upon which the system isfounded. In the exact sciences, asmathematics and astronomy, no suchprinciple of selection is permissible, be-cause in these, there are no parts thatcan be selected as true and others false,because they are all equally true. But inthe speculative sciences, as medicine andtheology, this principle of selection isnot only permissible, but demands re-cognition from the unprejudiced and un-scrupulous investigator. When medicinebecomes an exact science (w7 hich it neverwill) there will be but one system ofpractice, but so long as there remains somuch that is speculative and uncertain,just so long will there be differencesof opinion as expressed by differingschools.

In like manner when theology becomesan exact science (which it nqyer will)

3

there will be but one school of theology,but oue religious dogma as expressed bya mode of worship universal.

But so long as there remains in the do-main of theology so much that is specu-lative and uncertain, just so long willthere "be opposing schools of theologywith there multiple conflicting and di-verse practices. With an exact sciencethere can be but one school, and in pro-portion as differing schools exist in anyscience, so is the amount of that whichis theoretical and chimerical embodiedin their doctrines. The charge is oftenmade against the members of the reformschools that they lack that thoroughmedical training possessed by graduatesof the allopathic school. A brief con-sideration of this matter will reveal thefalse and irrational nature of the accu-sation. The greater number of studies,entering into the curriculum of a medi-cal course, are positive sciences and uponthese there exists no diversity of opinionor teaching in the opposing schools ofmedicine. In this class may be men-tioned those of anatomy, physiology,chemistry, botany, surgery and obste-trics. There are no conflicting theoriesregarding the anatomy of the humanbody because every part is subject topositive demonstration.

Consequently all schools teach thesame anatomy, and as the same facilitiesexist for all, no one can reasonably claimany superiority in point of learning, inthis department.

There is no conflict of opinion betweenthe differing schools upon the fundamen-tal laws of human physiology, all teach-ing the same doctrines, and all equallywell informed in this science. There isbut one chemistry and that the chemistryof Nature. All schools teach this samechemistry, with the same facilities forexperimentation and demonstration, andeach is equally conversant with the lawsof the science. There are differencesof -opinion regarding minor points ofchemistry, and also of physiology, thoughthe most important laws of each arepositively known. The differences ofopinion existing are those of individualsand have no connection with schools.

There is but one botany and that thebotany of plants. At the present timethere is but little conflict of opinion asto the proper classification of plants, allteaching the same, all enjoying the samefacilities for instruction, and allpossess-

ing an equal degree of learning in thisbranch of science. Surgery is a depart-ment in which there exists great diver-sity of opinion as to its principles andpractice. It is more of an art than ascience, and no school can lay claim toany thing especially distinctive in thisfield of professional activity. Thereexists no such thing as ameclectic systemof surgery, or an allopathic or homoeo-pathic system of surgery. The respec-tive [schools each have many surgeons,though they can not be regarded assectarian in theirpractices. There existas great differences between the practiceof surgeons of the same school of medi-cine, as between the latter , and those ofan opposing school.

For any school to lay claim to distinc-tive merit in the domain of surgery, whenthe same facilities for instruction haveexisted for each during the last half cen-tury, is idle and puerile. In the depart-ments of pathology and diagnosis, theonly differences of opinion existing, arethose of individuals and not of schools.

The same principles in each of thesedepartments are alike accepted by allschools. Thus far the schools are alikein their doctrines and teachings, and Iimagine that the reader is already sur-prised to learn that there is so much incommon between the opposing schools.

It is when we come to consider thenext and most important department ofmedicine viz.: the administration of drugsfor the cure or alleviation of diseasethat we find the various schools diverg-ing in their doctrines and practices. Itis painful to think of the violent opposi-

tion and persecution that is exercised bythe allopathic against thereform schools,in theirhonest and painstaking endeav-ors to improve the practice of thisdepartment, which all are agreed is yetin a very imperfect state. It wouldseem that any system, which promisedrelief from the imperfections and un-certainties of the old, would be hailedwith delight by this enlightened gener-ation. Innovations in every departmentof science and in every age have beenmet with unjust and cruel opposition bythe conservative element of the domi-nant schools and often to their abase-ment. The study of every other depart-ment of medicine is preparatory for, andminor to, the giving of drugs for diseasedconditions, and though the members of aschool be thoroughly conversant with

the principles of anatomy, physiology,chemistry and the other branches of amedical course, and fail to inform them-selves upon the properties of drugs,their action upon the organism and theindications for their use in disease, theyare but poorly qualified to practice theirprofession. The violent oppositionwhich the dominant school exercisedagainst the Eclectic school, at the time ofits inception, was based upon the asser-tion that there existed no cause for such areform. To this assertion those earlyreformers took exceptions on two differ-ent points. The first of these was theapparent lack of confidence which themost learned of the old school had inthe efficacy of drugs, as by them admin-istered. The second objection was basedupon the deleterious methods utilized bythe dominant school for the cure andalleviation of disease. In support ofthe first objection, we will introduce thetestimony of a few of the most eminentmembers in the old school both inEurope and America.

In discussing the question of the scienceof therapeutics in 1852, Wunderlichsaid: “Instead of exact observations, wenowhere see anything but hastily takennotes; instead of demonstrated princi-ples, we have mere notions; instead of astrict exposition of the cause of effectwe have useless definitions words void ofsense and meaning. That is what we findeverywhere.”

Prof. Haecker said: “We do not knowwhat is disease, how remedies act, andstill less how disease is cured. We mustabandon the way which has thus farbeenfollowed.”

Richter:—“No science contains somany sophisms, errors, dreams and liesas medicine.”

Schoenleiu: —“Since the time of theGreeks and Romans, medicine has madeno progress, or hardly any. It shouldbe reconstructed upon an entirely newbasis."

Magendie, one of the greatestphysiolo-gists of the century said:—“lf I daredto say just what I think, I should addthat it is chiefly in the service where themedication is the most active and heroicthat the mortality is the greatest. Gentle-men, medicine is charlatanism.”

Prof. Grogery of Edinburgh said:—“Medical precepts in most cases areveritable absurdities. ’ ’

Dr. Mason Good writes:—“Medical

science is a literal nonsense, medicineshave destroyed more lives than war,famine and pestilence combined.”

Trosseau: —“Therapeutics and materiamedica are, in our day, in a chaos oftransition.’'

Yirchow, the greatest among patholo-gists many years ago said: -—“We haveno rational therapeutics. ”

Niemeyer said:—“We must reallyagree with Bamberger, who thinks thatthe greater number of patients, who dieof endocarditis even, have succumbed notto the disease, but to the remedy.”

One of the commission appointedto re-vise and improve old school therapeutics,in 1865, wrote to the Medicine de Vienna:“We are working hard on the Tower ofBabel of therapeutics. What one givesin large doses another gives in smalldoses. This one extols a remedy whichis despised by another. A confusion, acontradiction, a chaos without a parallel,—and all this changes every year, ayeevery month.”

Wunderlich said to his pupils one day:“Gentlemen, there is such a chaos in ourtherapeutics that we ought to be thank-ful for any good advice, whether itcomes from an old woman, a shepherd,a blacksmith or even a homoeopath.”

The witty and sarcastic Girtamier saidthat the medical man of his day wT as likea blind man with a club, striking vaguelyin the dark. If he missed the disease ashe was very likely to do, he was verylikely also to hit the patient.

Dr. H. C. Wood, one of the highest au-thorities in our own country said:-“ Whatto-day is to be believed, is tomorrow tobe cast aside, —certainly has been the lawof advancement and seemingly must con-tinue to be so. With what a babel of dis-cordant voices does medicine celebrateits two thousand years of experience.”

More citations could be given were itdeemed necessary,but sufficient have beengiven to show the entire lack of confi-dence in old school therapeutics of thepast, among those of its members mosteminent as authors and teachers, and tosubstantiate the position of the medicalreformers. It must be apparent to thereader that the therapeutics of the oldschool was in a chaotic and confused statewhen the Eclectic school came into exist-ence, and we agree with Wunderlich,that knowledge from any source shouldhave been thankfullyreceived. Whetheror not it was, can best be answered by

5

those men who suffered social and pro-fessional ostracism, and the most crueland relentless persecution from thissame dominant school—the advancementand improvement of -which vtas theironly crime. This iuovation suffered thesame cruelties which have attended allgreat reforms, and like many others, ithas lived to accomplish that w'hereuntoit was sent. The second primary objectof the Eclectic school -was the correctionof certain destructive methods made useof by the old school for the cure oralleviation of disease. The philosophyupon which this objection was based,wr as, that if nature could not be aided inher efforts to restore health, nothingshould be done by the physician thatwould lessen the patients chances for

recovery. That there were practicescommon, at that time, which did thislatter thing, no intelligent person at thepresent time will deny.

Among the most destructive of thesepractices I wish to make particularmention of three, viz.; blood letting, theabuse of mercury and the extensive useof depurants, i. e. agents that act on theskin, kidneys, stomach and bowels.There were many lesser abuses such asthe giving of enormous quantities ofdrugs; the neglect to observe propersanitary conditions; the discardauce ofwater as a beverage in fevers; the neglectof vegetable remedies, etc., but the firstmentioned deserve special attention.The practice of blood letting as a meansof cure was the one in particular whichit was the mission of this reform schoolto correct. At the time that Eclecticismbecame a distinctive school of medicine,the practice of bleeding was so commonas to be resorted to in every emergency,and wms supposed to be a panacea for allhuman ills. It is recorded as a fair pre-sumption that the father of our owncountry was greatly hastened to hisdeath by the excessive abstraction ofblood at the hands of his medical ad-visors, and they were doubtless amongthe best medical men of their time. Atthe time of which we write physiologistshad proven that the blood was of vitalimportance to the welfare of the animaleconomy. That with blood in sufficientquantity and of good quality there wasabundance of life and activity. That theloss of a certain amount of this fluidmeant impairment of the vital powers,and perhaps death to the individual.

These and many more facts seem not tohave suggested to the physician, theparamount importance of this fluid inthe diseased, as well as the healthy con-dition. That these facts could havebeen overlooked seems almost incredibleat the present time, but that they werecontinually discountenanced, and thelesson which they taught ignored untilthere arose a few possessed of sufficientintelligence and boldness to perceive thefallacy of the custom and raise theirvoices in favor of the suppression of thehorrible practice, is a matter of history.The few were those who foundedEclecticism in medicine in its modernaspect. The opposition which they en-countered in tneir noble endeavor hashad no parallel in any other departmentof modern science. They were indomit-able and defiant, strengthened by thepowder of the huminitarian principal be-fore them, and continued to cry outagainst the evil practice until it wasfinally and forever abandoned. In thelight of the present time no one doubtsbut that the lives of countless multitudeshave been prematurely sacrificed becauseof this evil practice.

Its supporters argued that in feversespecially there was too much life, thatthere was too much blood, and themethod of cure should be to lessen thequantity of the blood in the vessels andconsequently the amount of life. Thatit lessened the amount of life, oftenleaving none for the individual, can notbe denied. That there is often a senseof relief following bleeding, gave greatercurrency to the practice, so long as thelater consequences not taken intoconsideration. Every intelligent personnow scoffs at the idea of bleeding as ameans of cure.

The founders of Eclecticism main-tained that any method of procedurewhich directly or indirectly lessened thepatients vitality was an evil practice, andone to be avoided in the management ofthe sick. They very correctly consideredblood letting as one of these proceduresand opposed it with tongue and pen. Ifthe individual, when in a healthy con-dition, required the full amount of theblood for the carrying on of the pro-cesses of life, they could not understandwhy he did not the more need it to carryon these same processes, and also to re-cuperate life’s forces w7 heu in a depressedcondition as in disease. It was said

6that In disease, the blood contained im-purities which were in part removed bythe direct abstraction of blood; but the re-formers maintained that in removing thepoisons, in this manner, the blood itself,so muchneeded at this time, was also re-moved, and that, in proportion to theamount of blood taken, was the life im-paired, and in this manner could bewholly destroyed. The discontinuanceof the practice is the best evidence thatit wr as an evil one.

Another prevalent custom at that time,and one which they opposed with almostequal vigor, was the extensive and in-discriminate use of violent depurants, orthose agents acting on the skin, kidneys,stomach and bowels. These were oftenvery similar in their results to the directtaking of the blood from the vessels.They were attended oy the same devita-lizing tendencies, though usually in alesser degree. They were attended bythe additional evils of profoundly dis-turbing the digestion and assimilation offood, and in this way prevented the en-trance into the blood of those nutritiveelements which were lost by the takingof the blood from the veins. Whilebleeding only lessened the quantity ofthe blood, the giving of drasticdepurantslessened both the quality and quantityof the circulating fluid. Both processestended to the same results,viz.: lesseningthe patients vitality and consequentlyhis chances of recovery. The followingcouplet well describes the practice at thetime of which we write:

“I puke ’em, I purge ’em, I sweat ’em.Then if they die I let ’em.

While Eclectics opposed the practiceof blood letting, as contrary to reasonand experiment, and sought to whollyrestrain it, they have differently regardeddepurants, believing them to hold a veryimportantposition among curative agentswhen properly administered. Theyopposed the use of the former and theabuse of the latter. In both instancessuccess has attended their endeavors.

The third of the great evils towhich these reformers turned theirattention was the extravagant anddangerous use of mercury. It was adrug more commonly used, and fora greater diversity of purposes perhaps >than any other then in use. As with thepreceding methods of cure, this drugwas used indiscriminately in almostevery variety of disease, and far too

often with the most direful results, asmany yet living may attest because ofthe suffering and injury which they sus-tained from the reckless use of the drug.Like other drugs in common use, mercurymay be made to answer a useful purposein practice, but that great injury has re-sulted from its abuse none will dispute.Mercury is in common use in all schoolsof medicine at the present time, thoughthe method of its administration hasbeen so modified that little harm is nowresulting from its use. Many persons,and among them physicians of the oldschool, believe that Eclectics do not usemercury, but in this they are mistakenas our literature will show, though wedo not use it extensively.

As briefly stated in the precedingpages, these were the causes of thedisruption in the medical world a halfcentury ago. The results have amplyproven the justice of the cause, andthere are few, who will have the temerityto deny the assertion that great goodhas come out of this reform movement.

There are many, while admitting theabove remark, who argue that Eclectic-ism has accomplished the objects where-unto she was sent, and should cease toexist. That she is now doing nothingand has no mission to perform. Thatall schools are Eclectic in the sense thatthey choose the best from all sources.To such we invite a rigid comparison ofthe principles and practices of the twoschools. Let him, who now believeshimself to be Eclectic, study the SpecificDiagnosis and Specific Medication ofmodern Eclecticism and then ask himselfthe question. Aside from the accom-plishment of the primary objects of theschool, she has made great advancesalong the line of direct or specific medi-cation. Eclecticism of to-day is a greatimprovement over the Eclecticism offifty years ago, and is as much in ad-vance of the dominant school as it wasthen. One of the prominent features ofEclectic teaching, especially during thelast quarter of a century, has been theimportance attached to the careful studyof the symptoms of disease with a viewto the discovery of that particular drug,which would cure or relieve this disease.The early Eclectics were content in theirefforts to abate the evil practices of thedominant school, and accomplishing this,they trusted to their successors, the de-velopments which have since been made.

The following is one of the mostprominent differential features of thetwo schools in their study of diseases.The dominant school has always per-sisted in the study of disease in itstotality, as pneumonia, pleuritis, peri-tonitis, etc., with a view to the correctnaming of the disease, while the Eclecticschool has not been content with this,but has maintained that all diseaseshould be more closely analyzed, and itsdistinctive symptoms pointed out, nst somuch that the disease might be correctlynamed, but that a proper course of treat-ment could be prescribed. Whiie we donot ignore the name of the disease ascharged by the opposing school, we doassign to it a minor importance, givingprecedence to the symptoms manifest.We do not treat names of disease butrather the symptoms present. Eclecti-cism teaches its disciples to give particu-lar attention to the symptoms of disease,not with the view primarily of being ableto name the disease, but more especiallythat they may be able to select the drugor drugs which experience has taughtwill cure, or alleviate, the symptom orsymptoms present.

We desire to be able to name thedisease, whatever it is, but not that suchname is to guide us in the selection ofour medicines.

The dominant school teaches itsadherents to note the signs and symp-toms of disease, not so much with aview to the proper selection of drugsfor a cure, but rather to be able tocorrectly name the disease, as typhoidfever, measles, scarlet fever, etc. Whenthis is done it relies upon a method oftreatment, said to cure the disease, with-out recognizing the fact that there aremultiple varieties of these diseases audthat each requires a distinct and differenttreatment for each variety. This is afatal weakness, apparent to the leastobserving.

The greater certainty and safety of theEclectic practice may be observed inthe fact that its adherents do not pre-scribe for names of disease, and may,without positively knowing the name ofthe disease, direct a course of treatmentvery successfully by observing thesymptoms present.

Eclectics desire toknow the name of thedisease, but place their reliance in thesymptoms present. It may be proper to

remark that the physician 1« very oftenat a loss to assign, with certainty, a nameto the diseased condition with which heis dealing, and if he has nothing else toguide his selection of remedies, it isapparent that the treatment is a matterof great uncertainty and not wholly un-attended with danger to the patient. Itmay be a disease of an unsuspected part,as the heart, while his treatment isdirected to some other part which hethinks is affected, and in this way nobenefit and perhaps injury results to thepatient. Or it may be a certain diseaseof an organ, the liver for example, whilehe believes it to be another disease ofthis organ and directs his treatment tothe supposed disease to the neglect orinjury of the existing trouble. Theseillustrations could be carried to an in-definite number, but the few given willshow the existing difference between theschools and the weakness, uncertaintyand dangers of the method of prescrib-ing for names of disease, as followed bytlm allopathic school. Eclecticism teach-es that disease, like all other naturalphenomena, has a language, and thatsymptoms and signs are its vocabulary.That all perversions from the normalcondition are attended by constant andunvarying symptoms, and that the natureand degree of such perversions are bestknown by the symptoms manifest. Thatevery time a drug ie given it shall be inresponse to a demand made by thesymptoms present. That where nothingespecial is indicated, nothing is to begiven, or at least nothing that can proveharmful. The question is often asked:How doyou know that a certain symptomdemands a certain drug, and that othersymptoms demand other drugs? Theanswer is, by experience only. There isbut one way to learn the action of amedicine upon the organism, and that isempirically, or in other words, by ex-periment.

The charge of empiricism has oftenbeen made against the reform schools bythe old school, and we have no desire todeny it. We acknowledge that what weknow of the action of drugs, when takeninto the body, has come to us by way ofexperiment, and much of it by accident.But we deny that the old school hascome by its knowledge through any othersource. What they have not learned inthis manner, they do not know, and it ispuerile and silly to lay claim to other

sources of knowledge. There are noreasons other than experimental, to be-lieve that castor oil or epsom salts willproduce purging; or that apomorphia, orlobelia will produce vomiting; or thatjaborandi or asclepias will increasetranspiration; or that acetate of potashor niter will increase the secretion of thekidneys; or that cocaine will producelocal insensibility of the tissues; or thatany other remedy will give rise to a cer-tain result. We know these results byexperiment only. We claim that the re-lation between symptoms and drug actionis constant, and when we have determinedthat a certain sympton will be relieved bya certain drug in a given condition, wehave determined this relation for all timeand under all circumstances. Thesymptoms calling for aconite will be re-lieved by this drug regardless of thenature of the disease or the part affected,A half dozen or more different diseases,presenting the symptoms calling for asingle remedy, would each get thisremedy and with equally good results ineach case.

This is the chasm separating the twoschools at the present time, and theprobability that it will be crossed byeither, for many years to come, is withoutfoundation. The adherents of the twoschools seem firm in the belief that theirown philosophy is the true one, and itremains for coming generations to de-cide which shall endure, or whethereither shall continue to exist. Be itsaid to the shame of the dominant school,that the spirit of intolerance, which itmaintains toward the reform schools, isone of the elements opposed to the uni-fying of the schools. A complete unionI do not think will ever be accomplished.The differences between the schools to-day are largely refinements upon thedoctrines that separated them fifty yearsago. The differences then existing havebeen almost wholly effaced by the con-cessions which the allopathic schoolhas been forced to make. It may beunkind, though it is just, to remark thatthe allopathic school has been fifty yearsin reaching some of the vantage pointstaken by the founders of Eclicticism,and at the present pace they will yet bemany years in reaching others. It is nouncommon occurance for old schooljournals at the present time to heraldthe discovery of a drug, as possessingsuperior powers over certain conditions,

while the same drug has been , used forlike conditions by the Eclectic schoolfor a quarter or half a century. Eclecticshave ever been progressive in theirmethods, and as a result there are asgreat differences between the schools asfifty years ago. The dominant schoolhas seemed to take delight in calling alldissenters from their doctrines irregularsin contradistinction to their own self-styled regular school; but we fail to seein what they are, or have been, regularoutside of intolerance and relentlesspersecution of every advance not madealong their line. Surely they are notregular in their practice, for according totheir own testimony, besides our ownknowledge of it, we know there is noth-ing more irregular. They derisively askus what we have accomplished in theway of advancement, whereas, if theywould subdue their intolerant egotismand read our literature, they would atonce learn that much has been ac-complished. As a school we do notprofess to be superior in all departmentsof medicine, nor in the majority, but inthe domain of therapeutics we do pro-fess to stand supreme. All are agreedthat this is the most important andthe one to which all others are sub-servient. We do not refuse to acceptwhatever they have discovered that isvaluable, and in this we enjoy an ad-vantage which they waive by their re-fusal to accept the results of ourobservation. The liberalizing tendenciesof the present time are affecting changesin their demeanor, as is evidenced by thedesire on the part of many to read ourliterature. The Eclectic system ofpractice has a voluminous literature andmuch of it is finding its way intothe libraries of old school physicians.Many of them are reading our books andusing our remedies, some openly andothers secretly. There are in the UnitedStates at present over 12000 Eclecticphysicians and as many more of otherschools practicing the Eclectic system.The growth of Eclecticism, since thedate of its inception, stands as a marvelin the domain of scientific reform, andthere is every reason to believe that timewill raise the barriers that have impededits progress in the past, and give it thatposition in the scientific world which itsmerit demands.

17th and Stout Sts., Denver, Colo.June 23rd, 1892.

SEND5END FOR SAMPLE COPY OF THE0

Eclectic Health Journal.The best publication for the family that is printed.

Address,

Dr. R. A. HASBROUCK,Room 206 Constitution Building,

SALT LAKE, UTAH.

E. MELVIN McPHERON, M. D.,

17th and Stout Sts., Denver, Colo.

DISEASES OF THE. EYE AND EAR A SPECIALTY.

T. W. MILES, M. D.,

ECLECTIC PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON,

Office, Tolteo Building, Cor. 17th and Stout Sts.

Denver, Colorado,

DISEASES OF THE NOSE, THROAT AND CHEST A SPECIALTY