Page 2 Advertisements Column 4

New Zealander, Volume 10, Issue 888, 18 October 1854, Page 2

CLEARING OUT everything on Monday. Boxes, Tarpauling, and what little Drapery is left. No reasonable offer refused. Next door to Mr. Kelly’s, High-street. TO TAILORS.—For sale cheap, two ends English stout Tweed. High-street, next door to Mr. Kelly’s. WANTED, in a healthly locality, Apartments and Board. Apply to Thomas Platt, O’Connell-streel.

[adveutisement.] lIOMCEOPAT H i r . To the Editor of the New-Zealandeb. SXR, —The Professor of Honußopathyhas favoured us with along epistle containing, “cum multis aliis," a justification of his treatment of the unreduced dislocation. . . . He admits that he committed n flight error, but that was unavoidable. He states that he soon discovered the existence of a “ partial” dislocation, and when the parts were in a fit state, appointed a time to apply the proper means for reduction. He tells us that it was first incumbent on him to remove and allay the “ swelling and inflammation ’ of the joint; that in this, he succeeded to admiration: and he further tells us that, with a knowledge of these facts, I nevertheless have attempted to persuade the public that he was ignorant of the true nature of the case, and maltreated the patient. This is a serious charge, and I must vindicate myself from it, or lie undc'r the disgrace of deliberate defamation. Let me then bo heard patiently. In “old-fashioned” surgery there is an axiom to this purpose—“ Remove the cause and the effect will cease.” Now, as the swelling and inflammation in this case (if any existed) were occasioned by the displaced head of the bone ; the rational method of euro would have been, to restore it to ;ts socket as soon as possible. “ Homoeopathic" surgery prescribes infinitesimals, and loaves thehead ot tue bone last wedged in the arm-pit! ! _ Mr. Hill is ready to declare on oath —and his testimony is corroborated by Mr. Beard, the apothecary, who saw the patient on the same day on which he applied to Mr. Fischer —that there was no swelling or inflammation of the joint at all. Mr. Beard urgently recommended immediate reduction; and Mr. Hill avers that no hint was thrown out by the Homoeopath at any period of the presence of dislocation, either partial or complete, and that no proposal was made by him to reduce the limb. I ask—ls this disinterested testimony to be rejected ? and are the assertions of a man to be accepted in preference, whose interest it is to make his conduct appear in the most favourable light, while he recks not what imputation lie casts on another ? I maintain that the whole history of the case is against him. Hie statement of the existence of a partial dislocation downwards is absurd, and implies gross ignorance of anatomy, or something worse ; whilst the means he employed (viz., swinging the arm about) however valuable for' “ suppling sprained Joints,” never could reduce a dislocation. It is no misrepresentation, then, to assert that the man’s arm was completely dislocated from the first; that the Homoeopath was ignorant of it; and that had the patient boon left much longer to the “tender” mercies of this painless method of curing di ea .es, the reduction of his limb would have been in po siblc, and he would hare been irreparably injured. Mr. Fischer says that lie leaves the question of his professional qualifications to the judgment of his patients.* On the same principle, St. John Long Morrison and Holloway, and the rest of the quacks might be reckoned men of “skill and discrimination,” for they have found numerous dupes to gulp their trash, and to certify to the benefit received and the cures performed. Regular medical men refer to other so; rces for their qualifications. It is fitting that the public should know that the medical schools and colleges at home and abroad are unanimous in denouncing Homoeopathy as quackery-and absurdity, and refuse to admit to honors and degrees those candidates who avow their adherence toils tenet*. Will Mr. Fischer tell us from what University he has obtained his degree of M.l).?—in what year he graduated?—and will he submit his degree for inspection ? I would further inquire—lias he a surgical diploma?—and from what College of Surgeons he obtained it ? His friends have stated, by way of excuse for his treatment of Mr. Hill, that he dors not profess to he a burgeon. If this be true, let me tell him that his temerity in meddling with surgical cases is great, and his conduct inexcusable. He is liable to prosecution —and I trust that true guardians of the public health will never shrink from their bounden duty of exposing the baseness of such as for gain, and without legal qualification, jeopard, by their ignorant intermeddling, the limbs and lives of Her Majesty’s subjects. As regards the vaunted progress of Homoeopathy as an improved method of treating disease, I have good grounds for asserting that, however rampant it may be in Auckland, it is rapidly declining in Kngla.ui and in Europe generally. The Hahnemann Hospital in London is burdened with debt; Dietl’s Hospital at Vienna has been closed. After a fair trial, the wards of the Parisian Hospitals have been shut against it, and it has found favour (so far as I am aware) only among the fai atics of Rio Janicro—the residence of one of its apostles, Dr. Mure f In Auckland, I am wananted in asserting that failure has been the rule, success the exception. Ido not know of one case of serious acute disease where recovery has been unequivocally attributable to Homccopathic treatment; if in chronic cases good has resulted, it has been from medicines given not in infinitesimal but in active doses, as I can prove in repeated instances. I shall not accept Mr. Fischer’s invitation to the bedsides of his patients. His shill and discrimination in surgery abundantly convince me of his indisputable pretensions to superior medical attainments. Medical men here are not so ignorant on the subject of Homoeopathy as Mr. Fischer supposes: on the contrary, they are well aware of its absurd tenets and dangerous tendencies, and cannot be expected to have any fellowship with the professors of such a system. In conclusion, I deny that any such compact regarding midwifery as that represented by Mr. Fischer exists. If the Homoeopath is preferred as the <r<linary medical attendant, let him, with like “skill and discrimination,” administer obsteric assistance. I believe that he has attended in such cases in Auckland, and no educated medical man can be ignorant of midwifery. No right-minded medical man will be concerned in any case where the patient is not entirely under his direction, and has not full confidence in him. Leaving Mr. Fischer to exnlt in his “ moral dignity and usefulness, second to none save the Christian ministry” —Mr. Hill to his chance of recovering the use of his arm—and the public to their meditations, i. am, &c., T. M. Pihlsok, M.D. Auckland, Oct. 10, 1854.

• Would the Doctor leave the question of his qualification to the judgment of such a patient as Mr. Hill f There are many •• Hii.i.s” in Auckland. The test is a dangerous one. t Dr. Mure is the celebrated discoverer of the medicinal virtues of the “ Pediculus humanus,” or common louse, as a Homoeopathic remedy.—Vide Brazilian Pharmacopoeia,