# Quackery Unmasked/Chapter XIX

CHAPTER XIX.
ECLECTICISM.
There has sprung up within a few years, in the United States, a class of medical practitioners who style themselves Eclectics. The term is of very ancient date, and appears to have been first employed by a class of pagan divines who lived long before the Christian era. The word is of Greek origin, and signifies to select, or choose, and was supposed to be characteristic of a sect who compiled their religious system by picking out something from each of the religious systems then in vogue. What became of that sect it is not our business to inquire. All we need to know, is, that Archigenes, a Syrian, who was an empiric, and lived about the time of the Christian era, borrowed the term and made it the foundation of his scheme. This sect may therefore lay claim to considerable antiquity, although we believe that the links of its history have been sometimes widely separated. From ​its origin to the present time it has ever been regarded as empirical—it has never prevailed to any very great extent, or embraced among its advocates many talented individuals. Sometimes the sect has become nearly extinct, and again it has sprung up anew and solicited public patronage. There are now several small institutions in the United States which are supported by that sect, but most of those who practise under that name are men who have never had any thorough medical education, but who have wrongfully assumed its responsibilities without being properly qualified to fulfil its requirements.
Now if Eclecticism was, or could be, what the term implies, we would not make the slightest objection to it, except on account of the cognomen in which it appears. We would never object to the use of the very best medical means. The regular profession always endeavors to do that, and is continually increasing and improving her resources for that purpose. As fast as Botany, Chemistry and Materia Medica develop new and improved agents, she instantly selects and employs such as are found, upon sufficient trial, to be important. No class of physicians ​can do any more than this; and if Eclecticism did all this, we would cheerfully extend to her the hand of fellowship, and rejoice to labor with her in the great cause of genuine philanthropy.
But this is not the character of that Eclecticism which we see moving around us. A very large majority of that class of practitioners are ignorant of the rudiments of medical science—men who were bred to some other employment, but, not contented to remain in their own appropriate condition, aspired to be gods of some kind, and therefore left some honorable vocation which gave them employment and support, and surreptitiously entered the arena of medicine. Many of these men commenced their career as Thomsonians, then became Botanic doctors, and at length, in the course of their transmigrations, have reached Eclecticism. How soon they will undergo another metamorphosis, and become Homœopathists, or Chrono-Thermalists, it is impossible to say; but neither they, nor the public, will be likely to gain or lose much by their frequent mutations.
It is said that there are some educated and ​quite respectable men who belong to this class. Then these men are in poor company. Why do they not pursue an honorable course, instead of giving their countenance and support to a class of practitioners who they must know are every way incompetent and unworthy? Why place themselves at the head of a column of such detestable recruits? If they bear the name of Alexander, they should endeavor to conduct like him.
As has been already stated, eclectics profess to compile their system of therapeutics by selecting from all the medical schemes in vogue such things as they believe to be proper; that is, they take a portion from scientific medicine, another portion from Thomsonism, another from Homœopathy, another from Hydropathy, another from Isopathy, another from Chrono-Thermalism; and so go on to select, from every variety of quackery, something to make a kind of bouquet, which they appear to think should be agreeable to all classes. But how, and by whom, is the selection to be made? Men who are profoundly ignorant of medical science, sit ​in judgment upon all medical means, and schemes, and proceed to select the right from the wrong, and the true from the false. As well might a blind man undertake to select the finest pictures from a promiscuous number of paintings. The idea is preposterous—no man can be a competent judge in any department of business or science with which he is not thoroughly acquainted; and if without such knowledge he attempts to make selections, he is quite as likely to do wrong as right, and is ever unreliable. Eclecticism is a kind of coat of many colors, which the wearers seem to suppose should please everybody. Like some politicians, they love all the dear people, and are in favor of all parties, and like them they deserve the confidence of none.
There are some practitioners, who, although they are not professedly eclectic, yet endeavor to ride two or more hobbies at the same time. They can practise "both ways," or several ways, and ask the patient to indicate the method by which he will be treated—'tis all the same to them—they only wish to know just what the patient wants, and they are ready to do his ​work. They can administer emetics and cathartics, or give decillionth attenuations of anything desired; and if thought best, they can apply the wet sheet, or give lobelia.
What if, when I give my watch to the goldsmith to be cleaned, he should ask me by what system I wish to have it treated—if I will have the dirt washed out with cold water, or warm water; or shall it be shook out, or blown out, or steamed out; or shall he lay it upon its back and wait until its own gravity brings it out? What would be thought of such an eclectic goldsmith?
All the varieties of quackery appear to be running a race, and each one pretends to be ahead of every other. Eclectics talk of nothing so much as progress. If we may believe them, all their means are the very newest of the new—they are rushing onward with the speed of a locomotive, and are outstripping and overturning all other systems. They sail over Homœopathy, and Chrono-Thermalism, which they consider as sunken hulks whose standing masts only serve to indicate the rocks or shoals upon which they have stranded. The established medical schools ​they consider as antiquated affairs—pyramids, indeed, but containing nothing but putrid mummies. But eclectics, instead of being ahead of what they choose to call the old system, are far behind it. They are only gleaners, and poor at that. They call themselves eclectics, which signifies persons who cull, or pick out from something already prepared; therefore, if they are true to their name, they wait for others to prepare the material from which they are to purloin whatever suits them. They are not pioneers, but capricious followers. They originate nothing, but are unthankful borrowers and imitators. All the knowledge and skill that they do possess, has been learned, as the parrot learns to talk, by mocking others.
It is no matter whether the physician is a member of this or that medical society—it is no matter in what school he has been educated—if he pretend to practise two or more ways to suit his patients. It is evident that neither the patient nor his friends can ordinarily be proper judges of the most suitable means to be made use of in any given case; for if they were thus ​qualified, there would be no occasion for employing a physician. Is it not extremely preposterous, therefore, for the physician to ask his patient by what means he will be treated? Or, is there no material difference between rational medicine and every kind of quackery? Are they all alike good or bad? Must we come at last to the mortifying conclusion that all the labors, researches and observations of physicians, for two thousand years, have brought forth nothing of any more value than the vilest nostrum? Can the physician be honest who tells his patient that all ways, or any two opposite ways, are alike good? When the house is on fire, is it equally good to cast water or turpentine on the flames? When the patient is suffering from obstinate constipation, is it equally good to give aperients or astringents? Men who pretend to such principles as these are either profoundly ignorant themselves, or design to deceive others; and in either case they must be dangerous practitioners.
Some of these men may effect their purpose by a double imposition; and whilst they pretend to remove alvine obstructions by astringents, they ​add to their alum or lead, jalapine or elaterin. The public should learn that neither in politics nor medicine does any reliable man attempt to ride two horses of different tempers at the same time. Hahnemann himself pronounces the most severe denunciations against such as practise both ways—sometimes using the homœopathic, and sometimes the allopathic medicines.