Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen.

Glen, John, M.A.

Date:: 1856

Credit: Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

29/32 page 27

$8. Cancer is a disease of the blood; the surgeon is aware f,f it—yet he is not guided by theory, he is guided by a symp- )om. Such is substantially the statement of Dr M'Gilchrist. —(P. 22.) Now that cancer is a disease of the blood, is not a i«ct, but a theory; and the surgeon, in deciding to extirpate, nr not extirpate, is guided by that theory. Sometimes he is guided by it to despair. Thus he says ; I know the disease hy \hese symptoms to be thorough cancer—thorough cancer is SNCURABLE—I will not interfere. 9. Dr Bennett has embraced the ancient humoral patho- M)gy.—(P. 22.) The statement is doubly incorrect. Dr Bennett aas not embraced any humoral pathology as a pathology suflScient M) explain all the phenomena of disease ; and 2d, If he has em- ■nraced any humoral pathology as explaining some groups of Phenomena in disease, it is not the exhumed nor exploded luuraoral pathology of the ancients, but the modern theory, ofounded on more extended and accurate observations. The laame appears to deceive the critic; because both are humoral, me thinks that to embrace the one is to embrace the other; though the one is the first meagre generalization, and the other fs the last full and scientific elucidation. Vast is the distance K&etween the amount of knowledge within our reach, and the lamount of knowledge which the ancients could apply. But of Ithis great advance the critic takes no proper notice. He has a Hheory indeed [no mere ignis fatui, however, no barren specu- alatlon], that medicine moves not in a straight line, but in circles -^apparently of the same diameter, without real progression. ■^Surely the advance of medicine would be more correctly com- pared to a mighty stream. There are waves upon its surface, J>now sinking, and now rising, but there is, withal, a definite ou- tward current, little affected by these minor and superficial ingcs. This doctrine, I think, is more in accordance with fact; »:Rnd it is certainly more cheering than the belief that we are I not moving on, but are merely deceived while moving round.$