The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1880-02-19
[Blsckwood's NIagazine.1
COntrarietieS of Medicine.

There IS not a person now III the
down-hill of life but who must recol-
lect when the principles now in the
ascendant were dominant once before
Half century ago, say 1925, starv-
ing system of diet was in fashion and
was vaunted as a great secret of pre-
serving and restoring health. Live
on sixpence day, and earn it, was a
maxim in universal favor, thought to
be potent against the most violent or
the most insidious forms Of dis
ease. Anon it was discovered that
the whole community was being
wasted by abstinence, and the cure
of all disease involved a generous
may, very high-diet; and it was
explained to us that we were all starv-
ing ourselves. We have now reverted
again to the starving system. The
lancet, which was in such universal
use in the last century, has not yet
been reintroduced; but there is no sort
of security that it will not reappear as
soon as its former reign may be suffi-
GENTLY forgotten to allow it to come
back as a novelty For fashion, not
science, rules everything in medicine.
One lucky man with a good name
starts away on tack which is oblique
to the prevailing mode. His good for
tune is noised abroad and the whole
pack follows him, shouting his cries
and reciting his maxims, until another
bold and lucky innoyator is able to
turn the current once more and lead
off on a new course. Is this hard
Judgment on the profession? We
think not. But let us consider one Of
the practices to which we have allud-
ed, and ascertain how it may support
or contradict the criticism that we
have ventured to pass. Blood-letting,
which was a universal practice cen
tury ago, and is altogether discoun-
tenanced now, must be either right or
wrong. If it was right, then the
whole profession IS to-day following
like flock of sheep an erroneous and
vicious fashion. If it is wrong, still,
while it was in the fashion, all follow
ed it without hesitation. If it had
only been an accidental error in the
career Of true science some able and
honest men would have lifted up their
voice against it. The faculty would
have been divided, and truth would at
last have prevailed. But there is not
the least reason to suppose that, until
the fashion had pretty nearly worn it
self out, and one doubted the efficacy
Of blood-letting. All went for it as
unanimously as all Enow oppose it.
Nobody was against it then; nobody
is for it now. This looks much more
like ignorance guided by fashion than
like science searching for solid truth.
We are aware that the opinion which
we have ventured to express has been
met by an explanation intended to
vindicate the purely scientific practice
of medical men in the last century and
in this. Mankind are not the same
now," says the apologist, "as they
were a hundred years ago. Copious
bleeding on almost all occasions was
the right thing for constitutions of
that day; but modern constitutions of
that day; but modern constitutions re-
quire a totally different treatment.
Blood-letting was salutary then, but it
is decidedly destructive now" This
generation is expected, then, to believe
that habitually and copiously to de-
plete their veins was good for man.
kind seventy years ago, but that in the
present day it is undesirable to deprive
a human being Of a drop Of his blood
Be it remembered that it is not q mod
ifcation Of a practice that is under
consideration, but a total reversal OF
it. 1t might be intelligible that blood
letting is not as extensively or as pro
fusely required as it was two or three
generations ago; but that is not all the
doctrine we are taught. Modern prac-
tice is, in regard to blood-letting, dia-
metrically opposed to the practice OF
the eighteenth century. Does any
body believe that we are so entirely
unlike our fathers and grandfathers as
to require a Numerically opposite
treatment to that which was good fol
them? The whole race cannot have
so changed in this remarkable partic
ular. The same defence may be made
of the alternative starving and feed
ms; but can we accept the argument;
Was there a radical change in Eng
lishmen's bodies from 1900 to 1910
another from 1910 to 1865; and anoth
er from the last date to 1879? If not
why does medicine vacillate so? Twt
doctors manage to meet each othe
with steady countenances, and W
have no doubt two augurs could al