HOMOEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 191, 20 May 1872, Page 3

HOMOEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY.

To the Editor o£ the THAMES GUARDIAN. Sin, — I The case of young Davies is not the first time homoeopathy has (lone wonders after allopathy has failed and been given up, for there is very' little doubt, as, far as human knowledge goes, that homoeopathic medicines turned the tide an ! saved the boy, although the legally qualified medical practitioner’s counsel wanted to cram us with the old notion that these people are in the habit of stepping in when a favourable change takes place. But why should the legally qualified medical practitioner monopolize (and, to use an expression in Sat' relay’s Guardian) the cutting and carving arid physicing trade? There are clever medical practitioners in homoeopathy as well as in allopathy. What a social reform it would be to sec the “regular dustman” and “grocer” go hand in hand visiting our sick and dying biethren. But because the father thinks proper to try another shop after he has been told there is no hope for his boy, must the “ legulai dustman” fly off in a flutter, saying he has been scurvily treated, and at once write out a bill 50 per cent more for the time being than it would have been bad ho been”allowed his own way, and then insist upon the immediate payment thereof ? And then the boldness to assert (had he kept the patient alive) “ that he might have still attended him if his regulations had been carried out.”—l am, &c., Live and Let Live. , May 18th, 1872.