Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:hphys:hphys01-book-notices-and-reviews-159-11068 [2013/06/04 17:39]
+++ en:hphys:hphys01-book-notices-and-reviews-159-11068 [2013/06/04 17:39] (current)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== BOOK NOTICES AND REVIEWS ======
+{{anchor:s2}}LECTURES, CLINICAL AND DIDACTIC, ON THE DISEASES OF WOMEN. {{anchor:s3}}By //R. Ludlam//, //M. D//., Professor of the Medical and Surgical Diseases of Women, in the Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital, of Chicago, etc., etc. {{anchor:s4}}Fifth Edition, revised, enlarged and illustrated, pp. 1028; price, cloth, $6.00. {{anchor:s5}}Chicago: Duncan Brothers. 1881.
+{{anchor:s6}}Gynaecology, in the Old School, may be divided into two branches; the surgical and the therapeutic or medical. {{anchor:s7}}From an allopathic point of view, both of these classes are wrong the one relying too much on surgical measures, the other too entirely on medicinal. {{anchor:s8}}From a homoeopathic standpoint, it is evident that surgical measures should be entirely subordinated to the therapeutic, and should be used only as a last resort. {{anchor:s9}}Under the lead of Simpson, Wells, and others, in England; of Simon, Esmarch, etc., in Germany; of Atlee, Sims, etc., in America, gynaecology has become a surgical art. {{anchor:s10}}There is an excessive surgical tendency exhibited by the leading gynaecologists of the Old School. {{anchor:s11}}As allopathy has no therapeutics, and, as Dr. Matthews Duncan says, “tangible remedies are the favorites of the physician and the vulgar,” one is not surprised at their relying so much on surgical measures. {{anchor:s12}}But, among homoeopathists we should expect to see preeminence given to internal medication. {{anchor:s13}}We are, therefore, pained to observe in this large work of Prof. {{anchor:s14}}Ludlam, how entirely he ignores the internal medication, which has achieved such success in the hands of our leading practitioners, for the surgical measures of allopathy. {{anchor:s15}}Although mention is made of internal medication and remedies given, this part of his treatment is evidently considered as of minor importance. {{anchor:s16}}As an instance, on page 307, in discussing the subject of “nausea and vomiting of pregnancy,” we read: “For the vomiting of a viscid mucus, especially on rising, //Nux vomica// and //Cocculus.// {{anchor:s17}}For constant, or occasional vomiting, without regard to the position of the body, and for vomiting of whatever is swallowed, egesta being mixed with bile or mucus, //Ipecacuanha.// //{{anchor:s18}}* *// * For the vomiting of bile with the food, a rancid heart-burn, and ptyalism, especially at night, //Mercurius.//{{anchor:s19}}” After giving a small list of other remedies, “special indications, for which you will look to the materia medica,” our author adds: “The number and variety of these remedies implies that the so-called morning sickness of pregnancy is a self-limited disorder, because [l] when a disease inclines to get well of itself, it may easily happen that whatever has been prescribed will sometime or other get the credit of having cured it.{{anchor:s20}}” This sentence betrays the author’s lack of faith in homeopathy and its medicines, and also his ignorance of homoeopathy. {{anchor:s21}}He had as well say that //consumption// is a self-limited disease, because many remedies are used in its treatment. {{anchor:s22}}It betrays ignorance of homoeopathy, because the number of remedies, whose symptoms apply to any disease, have nothing whatever to do with its curability or non-curability.
+{{anchor:s23}}Dr. Ludlam’s book includes a wide range of subjects: the functional, diseases of menstruation, of pregnancy, hysteria, etc., as well as the organic diseases of the ovaries, uterus, etc. {{anchor:s24}}The work is well and profusely illustrated; its descriptions are brief and good, but it displays rather the character of a compilation than the stamp of originality, such as observed in the treatises of Thomas, Emmet or Barnes. {{anchor:s25}}By the way, in several instances, the author’s quotations are taken from older editions of the writers quoted. {{anchor:s26}}It would have been better to have given their latest and ripest experience. {{anchor:s27}}In conclusion, we again express our regret that Dr. Ludlam has so entirely ignored homoeopathy and its remedies for the useless expedients of allopathy. {{anchor:s28}}His work can in no sense be called homoeopathic, nor is any such claim made. {{anchor:s29}}Hahnemann and homoeopathy are conspicuous only by their absence. {{anchor:s30}}As an allopathic work, it cannot rank with those of Thomas or Emmet; as a homoeopathic work, it is immensely inferior to Jahr or Guernsey.
+{{anchor:s31}}A TREATISE ON THE DECLINE OF MANHOOD; ITS CAUSES, AND THE BEST MEANS OF PREVENTING THEIR EFFECTS AND BRINGING ABOUT A RESTORATION TO HEALTH. {{anchor:s32}}By //A. E. Small//, //A. M//., //M. D.// Chicago: Duncan Brothers. 1881.
+{{anchor:s33}}This little book of 102 pages is, according to the preface, “an attempt to supply a want in the literature of homoeopathy.{{anchor:s34}}” This we are not quite ready to grant that it does. {{anchor:s35}}The treatment is not sufficiently comprehensive. {{anchor:s36}}The remedies given are only a few that have been successful in the experience of the author. {{anchor:s37}}The differential indications are vague and general. {{anchor:s38}}The treatment is too suggestive of the empiricism of the old school. {{anchor:s39}}This empiricism has already made considerable inroads into the avowedly homoeopathic literature, and it is not desirable that it should be encouraged. {{anchor:s40}}Dr. Small should, therefore, give a more extended symptomatology, like that in Bell’s book on Diarrhoea; his work would then become a hand-book for daily use. {{anchor:s41}}On page 42, “//Arum muriaticum//” should read //Aurum muriaticum.// {{anchor:s42}}Do not the symptoms enumerated at foot of page 57 indicate //Cantharis// rather than //Tartar Em.?//
+{{anchor:s43}}W. M. J.
+{{anchor:s44}}%%_______________%%
+{{anchor:s45}}WANTED,
+{{anchor:s46}}Copies of the January number of this Journal: thirty cents each will be paid for the same. {{anchor:s47}}Gentlemen wishing to dispose of this number, will please forward to 2109 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. {{anchor:s48}}Write your name on outside of wrapper.
+{{anchor:s49}}%%____________%%
+{{anchor:s50}}CHANGE OF HEART.
+{{anchor:s51}}We are glad to see that the //American Observer// has experienced a change of heart. {{anchor:s52}}In its July issue, instead of abusing pure homoeopathy, as has been its habit, it reviews the //Revised New Testament.// {{anchor:s53}}Doubtless a //new// book to them!
+----
+====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======
+^ Source: | The Homoeopathic Physician Vol. 01 No. 09, 1881, pages 456-458 |
+^ Description: | BOOK NOTICES AND REVIEWS. |
+^ Author: | HPhys01 |
+^ Year: | 1881 |
+^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting |
+^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum |

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools