The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-07-09
The Great state Medical wrangle

Some of the newspapers have been COM
menting In a wholly unjustiied manner
upon the medico-political dispute which
has arisen in this State apropos of the
unteers. The two doctors who have had
the manhood to stand up for their sci
entifc faith have been made the targets
of much cheap and ignorant abuse.
Their action has been described as of the
nature of trades ~unionism,'' it has been
likened to the action of walking dele
gates. The mildest thing said about their
conduct is that it is marrow and
puerile.
Perhaps it Is worth while to see whether
this sort of condemnation is deserved in
the premises. Perhaps it is worth while
asking whether there is not a principle
involved in the action of the two doctors.
If there is one. 1t may be well to settle
the question, here and now. whether a
principle is worth standing by or not,
and whether the world is truly served by
men bottling up their principles and put
ting their beliefs out of sight in their
pockets, in order to get along easily and
pleasantly and avoid friction in social
and other kindred RELATIONSHIP a word,
for the sake of a quiet life.
These are the facts in the case. Cover
nor Foster NJ. VOORHEES, early in the week
appointed DR.. David l.. Wallace of the
Newark Board of Health, DR.. Nathaniel
voorhees, of Elizabeth (the Governors
brother) and DR.. William F. Decker of
Paterson a Board of Medical Examiners
to pass upon the qualifications of appli-
cants for commissions as surgeons to the
new regiment. Drs. Wallace and Voor-
hees are physicians of the regular school.
DR.. Decker is a homeopathic practitioner.
The two regulars promptly sent their
designations to the Governor on the
ground tina their principles as medical
a scientific hereto. They had no per-
sonal objection to DR.. Decker. AS an in
dividual they regarded him highly. But
they regarded his theories as erroneous
and harmful, and they could not con-
scientiously give them countenance or ac-
ceptance to the extent implied in joint
service with him on a medical board.
Now for the purposes of this discussion
it is not necessary to decide whether
homeopathy is right or wrong. 1t is only
necessary to grasp the proposition that
these two doctors believe it wrong in or
der to see that they did their simple duty
in refusing to promote it in n a
Medical science differs from most other
things in the awful finality of the inter-
ests at stake. Men may differ about
each others existence, for all mistakes
may be righted in the long I'll Re-
ligion is a sort Of debatable ground
where one man may turn out to be right
just as we'll as the other and all results
are uncertain. We are reminded of the
story in the new English Anecdote book
which is having such a vogue, where one
speaker rates The Bishop above the Judge
because the Judge can only say, you be
hanged While the Bishop can say, You
be damned"
Yes said the clergyman-the Master
Of Ballot College, we think-who hap
pened to be listening, 'but if the Judge
says, You be hanged, you are hanged"
This is just it. Most other things are
debatable. but when the Doctor says,
no conscientious practitioner. therefore,
can give, or should be expected to give,
| his countenance to a system which he be-
| lieves to be founded on fatuous error and
to be pernicious and fatal in It's applica-
ton. It would appear to US that if Dr.
| Decker and his co-believers believe in
they would have precisely the same OBJ
| j~ections to cooperating with the Allo-
| pathic school that the Allopathic chool
has to them. The position Of Drs. Voor-
bees ana Wallace in the premises is, in
| fact. precisely that held by all doctors
i, and all reasonable men towards the faith
| curists and mind curlsts n other total
| disbelfevers IN medicine
OF course, we repeat, we do not n