New-York tribune., 1917-12-17
The Founder Of Osteopathy


The originators and projectors OF new
systems in religion, in politics, in medicine
or indeed in any field Of speculation or
activity. are not all so fortunate as
the late Andrew Taylor Still, who lived
long enough to see his teachings win
more or less respectable standing in many
most unlikely places When the first school
of osteopathy was opened, a quarter OF
century ago. DR.. Still was looked upon by
his orthodox brethren as a mere original,
a harmless crank whose eccentric doctrine
could never gain a general vogue and
would probably die with him. Yet Whlle ne
lived his adaptation and ampliiication OF
the bonesettor's art won degree OF recog-
milton which, If it did not entirely satisfy
his ambition, must at least have surpassed
his expectation.
tension of empiric bonsetting would doubt
tension of empiric bonsetting would doubt
less offend some jealous followers OF the
osteopathic cult, and yet there are highly
skilled practitioners of the art abroad who
are content to accept the old title and still
suffer themselves to he called "bonesetters'
at least with the apologetic marks OF
quotation. Doubtless the more learned and
farseeing among them are conscious OF the
limitations of all rigid systems in medicine
and surgery, conscious Of the futility Of
attempting permanently to establish any
new dogma. The day Of dogma in the art
Of healing is past-at least. we all hope so.
Dogma cannot be counted upon to drive
out dogma, and osteopathy as a system
has as little hope of survival as homGop-
athy.
1t does not follow that there is no truth
in osteopathy or that there are not skilled
practitioners among the followers of DIR.
Still. Only few days ago medical man
of good standing and much experience,
lecturer on clinical medicine at Bellevue
and consulting physician at st. Luke's,
wrote to "The Medical Record" in high
praise of some osteopathists whose work he
had seen, and declared it as his opinion
"that osteopathy should be recognized as a
valuable adjunct in some cases to our other
means Of treatment, medical or surgical"
1t is impossible altogether to cast aside
the whole-hearted testimony Of so dis
tinguished a surgeon as the late Walter
Whitehead, who boldly took up the defence
of Mr. II. A. Barker, the London boneset-
ter. in opposition TO an overwhelming ma
jority Of his colleagues. Nor is it possible
to accept the answer that Mr.. Barker has
nothing to teach that the average orthodox
surgeon does not know, for there is too
much evidence TO the contrary.
On the other hand, We arc by no means
obliged to admit that recognition Of useful
work done by the practitioners of school
involves acceptance Of the doctrines of that
school Mr.. Barker, for instance, in all
probability. does not accept Stills teach
ings generally, if indeed he is interested in
them at all. All he has claimed in public |
is a knowledge and understanding of con- |
ditions imperfectly understood by the COM
mon run of regular surgeons at the present |
day. The schools Of osteopathy generally |
are much more pretentious, and an objec-
tion to many of them hitherto has been
that, even supposing their doctrine to be
true, the training afforded was manifestly
inadequate to meet the obvious require |
ments.
Upon the whole it seems unlikely that
as system osteopathy can last for long. I
Most of the more competent osteopathic
practitioners recognize its limitations to-
day, and in time whatever there is of value |
in it will inevitably be absorbed in the
general teachings of medicine and surgery,
or else the osteopathist will survive as
specialist in comparatively narrow field /