Homoeopathy : its nature and relative value / by Archibald Reith ; with an appendix by D. Dyce Brown.
- Date:
- 1868
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Homoeopathy : its nature and relative value / by Archibald Reith ; with an appendix by D. Dyce Brown. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
37/96 page 37
![sr it is a remwrkaUe fact that all .tlwsewho have hoiustly in- vestigated the subject have ado2Jted the new system, many of them taking it up for the purpose of loriting against it. And conversely, / have never heard of, nor docs it appear that Allopathists can hring forward a true reliable instance of any one loho, after adopting Romceopathy, lias honestly ahandoned it * Sir James Simpson and others have Avritten against Homceopathy; but in spite of the weight of their names, their statements are worthless, for two reasons—first, Be- cause they are based on a misunderstanding of the subject they write of; and, secondly. Because they never put the doctrines they condemn to a ]Dractical test. To do the medical profession justice, there is some ex- cuse for their opposition—an excuse which has by no means received from Homoeopaths the attention it deserves. There are various reasons v>diich unquestionably give some colour to the attitude adopted towards Homa^opathy by medical men. These reasons may be arranged under three heads. 1. Tliere is, undoubtedly, a great deal of nonsense in Homoeopathic writings. Even Hahnemann himself lias written much to repel an inquiring mind. There is fi body called the pure Hahnemannian school, the tenets of wliich are certainly repugnant to every rational feeling. With this school no sympathy can be had. I believe that to it nuich of the opposition of medical men to Homoeopathy is due, because they judge of the whole system by the doc- trines of this small and extravagant sect. Still, the errors of Hahnemann, and particularly of his foUoAA'ers, do not warrant a wilful rejection of the truth which is enveloped under them. To carry out this principle would compel us to dispense with medical literature altogether; for how nnich rubbish appears weekly in the orthodox medical * Two or three instances have been brought forward, but the cu-cunistances are not stated. One of them, at all events, gave up Homoeopathy in order to gain an appointment. This is not an honest abandonment.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21911101_0039.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
