The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-08
DIR. sMYTHE AND THE KELLEY CURE,

The News, of this city, publishes the
substance of a paper recently read by
DIR. G. G. Smythe, of Greencastle, in
which he attacks the so-called Kelley
cure for drunkenness as q fraud which
is doing more harm than good. The
News vouches for DR.. Smythe as lone
of the most learned men in Indiana" If
this be true, he is, in the opinion of the
Journal, putting his learning to very
poor use in trying to bring ridicule and
contempt on treatment which thou
sands of persons who have taken 1t are
daily testifying has done them meal
culable good, and which thousands of
families are blessing for what it has
done for some loved one. Admit that
the originator of the Kelley cure claims
too much for it in claiming that it is q
permanent as well as specific cure for
the drink habit; admit that some of
those who have apparently been cured
by the treatment do relapse and go back
to their cups; admit that DR.. Keeley's
advertising methods are in open vio-
lation of the medical code; admit
all that can be truthfully said against
him or his treatment and the fact re-
mains that hundreds, OF perhaps thou
sands, of persons have been at least
temporarily cured of the taste and de-
sire for intoxicating liquors, and very
large proportion of these seem to be
permanently cured. 1t savors more of
ignorance than of learning, more of in
tolerance than of liberality, and more of
cruelty than humanity to assert that
such treatment is doing more harm
than good. It would be quite as reason
able to assert and as easy to prove that
the whole science and practice of medi-
cine is fraud because large proper
ton of those treated by physicians die,
and all who are so treated get sick again
some time or other. For Gods sake, and
humanity's sake, If even small per
cent. of those who try the Kelley cure
are benefited thereby let the regular
practitioners keep hands off until they
can offer something better or half as
good.
DR.. Smythe, in his paper On the sub
ject, rehashes the threadbare and COM
monplace talk about drunkenness by
heredity, drunkenness as disease. etc.,
as if, there were anything new in this,
either to the profession or to laymen.
That branch of the subject has been dis
cussed ad nauseam. DR.. Smythe's con-
clusion, in effect, is that whom God has
made drunkard man. cannot cure. The
conclusion begs the question, and is
simply q bit of professional arrogance.
The question whether the Kelley treat
ment can cure. or help to cure, the drink
habit is not to be settled by priori ar
guments as to the impossibility of eff
fecting such cure by medical treatment.
One living case of accomplished cure is
worth all the a priOri arguments in the
world on that point. and there are hun
dreds of such cases. Even if it is
nothing more than a moral aid or a
faith cure, if it accomplishes good re-
suits, in heavens name, let it alone.
DR.. Smythe seems to have been at great
pains to collect statistics of those who
have taken the treatment and after
wards relapsed. How would he like to
have the results of his own practice
tested the same wayf Perhaps if he
will take equal pains to ascertain the
number of those who have taken the
treatment and not relapsed, he will feel
more like saying something in favor of
the cure and less like preaching the in
durability of drunkenness. The cure
has at least given faith, hope and cOur-
ago to many persons who have not been
able to find it elsewhere. There is
nothing in DR.. Smythe's arraignment of
it to cause faith in anything except the
invincibility of the devil.