Remarks on "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" : being a review of Prof. Bennett's published introductory lecture (University of Edinburgh, session 1855-56) / by John M'Gilchrist, M.D.
- McGilchrist, John, 1821-1864
- Date:
- 1856
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Remarks on "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" : being a review of Prof. Bennett's published introductory lecture (University of Edinburgh, session 1855-56) / by John M'Gilchrist, M.D. 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.
39/46 page 37
![furor, it seems he had forgotten his part—masked and muffled in a cloak behind the consulting room door, prompting doubtless, but not intending to bo seen at the elbow of Mr Glen. Well, his authority is on the wane, and we respectfully return him his denial, without any qualitication. Mr Glen next considers what after his classification is Dr Bennett's third instance —third instance of what ? Any one else who has read the lecture, must see that it is no instance, but plainly what we have termed it,—a ' statement of a fundamental doctrine.' As usual Mr Glen gives no quotation, he knows better: it will be found at page 20 of this pamphlet. Passing over a paragraph wherein we are likened unto an impulsive barbarian horde (many thanks!) — '•At last, he says— At last Dr M'Gilchrist collects his forces and faces the third instance. ]u it Dr Bennett siiows that the theory of cell-formation aud its condi- tions (though not THE primitive fact which some suppose,) is most useful already in application to treatment. What says the critic ? Does he deny that it is a theory ? 'No. That it is useful in practice ? No. Yet ^/;a^ is the sole point of interest now. What then says the critic? He asks if Dr Bennett means to exhume a mouldering humoral patho- logy ? If it can be of any use to him, Mr Glen may here have one of the denials he seems to covet. It still remains to be proved that the said cell theory is most useful already in application to treatment: its application to treatment is rather fanciful. We did not ask the ques- tion, but rather expressed astonishment, that Dr Bennett should, as his words seem to imply, pursue the ancient humoral pathology; a march so opposite to the direction of his peroration. Mr Glen adds, that— The enquiry is palpably absurd : perhaps so, but then it is no fault of ours. He goes on :— But as the question is further irrelevant, it may be at once, on this gi-ouud, set aside; while t/iercy unanswered and triumphant, stands Dr Bennett's third iustance. From that point unassailed any more by critic, Dr Bennett rehearses his list of the treatment of growths, abscesses, pneumonia, pleurisy, and cancer, and claims as proper triumphs the bene- ficial changes in the treatment of apoplexy, syphilis, small-pox, phthisis, aud Bright's disease. Tiierefrom, justly, he infers by induction that great is the influence of medical science. Now, had Dr Bennett done something more than ' rehearse his list,'— had he honestly attempted to show that:—The beneficial changes which have taken place in our treatment of apoplexj', syphilis, small- pox, Bright's disease, and many other disorders, might be shown either tu have originated from, or to be capable of being satisfactorily explained by an advanced knowledge of physiology,—had he done this, it might have been somewhat to the pui-pose. But the above paragraph, from page 19 of his lecture, is all he says about it. Therefore, justly, does](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21478156_0039.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
