Billeder på siden

greatest of all Eclectics that ever lived, sickness is the state of
the body when its "movements" are disturbed and unsteady,
and do not get on except with difficulty. Henceforeward, in
no definition was the dynamic element ever lost sight of
The systems of Friedrich Hoffman,* the founder of the me-
chanico-dynamic school, of William Cullen,† the founder of
the neuro-pathological school, and of Anton de Haen,‡ the
founder of the older Vienna school, did not differ about the
proposition that life is motion, and disease a disturbance of the
normal manifestation of this motion, but only about its causa-
tion and effects, and about the special application of the
general principle. Even John Brown,§ although he prided
himself to be original, founded the system called after his
name, on dynamics; setting forth excitability generally as the
cause as well of health as of disease, of which idea the "stim,
olo" and "contra-stimolo" of Giovanni Rasori, of Parma,l
Italy, was a bad copy; while Schonlein, who was a celebrated
clinical professor of Berlin, Germany, refused the best idea of
Brown, to which Roschlamb, of Marburg, Germany,** emphat-
ically adhered, viz.: that there is no diametrical opposition
between health and disease, either being only a modification
of one and the same motion, life. Nevertheless, Schonlein
recognised disease as a dynamic element; he considered it as
a kind of parasitic generatio æquivoca, an individualised alien
intruder preying upon the body of man; whose health, in his
opinion, was a result of the dynamic powers of the individ-
ual overpowering the dynamical powers of the planetary
system-a conception which needs only a different wording
to be brought up to the standard of Charles Darwin and
Ernest Hæckel and their schools. Among the prominent
authorities at the present day we mention Henle, of Gottin-
gen, who calls disease a deviation of the normal, typical, that
is healthy, process of living; a modification of health brought
about by an expenditure of the normal force under excep-
tional circumstances. Virchow, of Berlin, and Bonchut, of
Paris, agree with him, although each of these two expresses
* 1660-1742. + 1709-1790. 1704-1776, § 1735-1788.
|| 1763-1837. 1768-1835. **1768-1835.


himself in a way peculiar to the standpoint which he is occupying with reference to secondary points. Life, says Bonchut, is impressionability. Diseases, therefore, are nothing else than altered impressions. Virchow denies that there is in reality such a thing as sickness. Life in its essentiality being cellular movement, kept up by outward irritating agencies, which produce an effect on the innate forces and capacities, sickness is only an abstraction. Either of the two, health or disease, is life itself; or if you prefer, the constituents of it. Even in mental disease science has come to the result that it consists of a dynamic process. Dr. Bucknill regards insanity as "a condition of the mind in which a false action of conception or judgment, a defective power of the will, and an uncontrollable violence of the emotions and instincts, have separately, or conjointly, been produced by disease."* Broussais statest that he cannot seize the quomodo of the manifestation of thought in consequence of the movement of matter. But he says, nevertheless, that it is true that we notice it; he does not doubt, of the human intelligence being a manifestation of the movement of our brain, as a physiological fact.

After all this exposition there can be no doubt that, be the minor dissensions whatever they may, the agreement about the general character or principle of disease is universal. Natural science established it, and medical science cannot help accepting it. Yea, medical science, to a certain point, preceded natural science, able practitioners establishing in their definitions of disease as a GUESS what experimenting chemists and investigating physicists, after centuries of research succeeded in proving as true. And it will be admitted that, in venturing upon a definition of disease which fully realise the fundamental character of natural science in all medical matter, need only interpret the great physical law of the conservation of energy and the implicit medical adherence to it in order to hit upon a formula the tenor of which will give satisfaction. The exact wording will, of course, remain a matter of taste,

* BUCKNILL and TUKE: Manual of Psychological Medicine, p. 23, (Philadelphia 1879.

+ L. C., p. 101.

and as to that I do not doubt but I shall soon be improved upon. But as to the meaning of the definition there can scarcely be a dispute about the formula to be chosen ; for as to essentialities the cited authorities are pretty determinate that disease is a disturbance of the individual conservation of energy in the body by a deviation of its dynamic powers from the harmony of their function, and their change to a proportionate activity less favorable to a resistance against death.

Disease is not an absolute disturbance of the conservation of energy, because there is nothing of the kind in nature. But it is a disturbance relative to the conservation of energy which constitutes health in the human body. It is, therefore, dependent on an improper manifestation of the dynamical powers of the individual, the criterion of which can, of course, be nowhere else found than in a subjective condition; it is, as Bichat in his Recherches Physiologiques sur la Vie et la Mort correctly suggests: the greater or less tendency to lead to dissolution which constitutes the value of a dynamic manifestation in the body.

Having got thus far, every one who has as attentively as kindly accompanied me in my exposition to the point we have reached, will admit that we are now fully justified to put in shape a formula of the therapeutic principle which we must claim that science has decided upon, although we meet nowhere with its full and adequate expression. As to the exact wording of this formula I admit again, as in the case of formulating the definition of disease, that there can be a great difference of opinion, and that the proposition I am about to make may justly deserve the censure which critics used to have in store for such propositions. But as to the idea itself, science and not only natural philosophy but medicine also, have the pronounced so definitely that there is no room for earnest dissension; and we must proclaim as resting in general scientific principles of therapeutics the maxim: Moveantur secundum indicationem motionis! (Medicate and operate according to dynamic indications !)

This maxim is not only in full accordance with all modern physical researches, but it satisfies all just desires of the profes

sion; giving full scope as well to doctrines of all schools which keep within the line of scientific restriction, as to all individual fancy of medical intuition which does not transgress the line of demarkation for all true medicine, as the art of instantaneously applying to particular cases or under peculiar circumstances the general rules and theories abstracted from average conditions, and hoarded up in the collective and systematically gathered experience of all countries and centuries: Science, a task, by the by, in reference to which the old saying may hold good, that one pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it. We cannot at all events set down any other maxim of general therapeutics which rest on scientific ground, because all items in health and disease to be considered from either a physiological or a pathological, from a hygienic or a therapeutic standpoint, are of a dynamical nature, and all substance to be given either as a remedy or as nutrition, either as a surgical application or as an exhibition belonging to the department of inner medication, cannot but be in its effects of a dynamic character, so that there is always motion of whatever kind it be, of the construction or of the structure of the body, of the limbs and muscles, or of the molecules and atoms, which cannot be met with but by movement, whatever be its quality, mechanical, dynamic, electric or magnetic. The dynamical maxim, moveantur secundum indicationem motionis, comprises, therefore, all guiding which the practitioner may glean from either of the maxims in use or any other that might be thought of. There is in it as well the valuable instruction of the Homœopathist to make use of a remedy that by being akin to the malady may have a hold upon it, as there is in it the wise direction of the Allopathist to do it in a way that is contrary to the disease to be cured. But there is in it no restriction which limits its use and applicability to cases exclusively pathological, so that the important physiological consideration of the Eclectics is also provided for in it. Moreover it contains one element which is a constituent of neither of the forementioned maxims; it gives a direction as to the relativity of the dose, without limiting itself, however, to any special theory; and thus. it holds good in all and

every respect. All specialists, as well those of a surgical as those of a medical cast, may go by it; it serves the oculist and the otist, the laryngologist and the dentist, the obstetrician and gynecologist, the hydropathist and the movementcure man, the electrician and the mesmerist, the neurologist and the syphilologist, the dietarian even and the hygienepracticing physician: in each and every case that can possibly recur the medico-professional question is a dynamical one, and its successful treatment cannot be undertaken in any other direction than that which is understood by moveantur secundum indicationem motionis; or, less broad, more to the poi and in plain English: Treat with similars, contrary to disease, or otherwise, but always according to the dynamic relation of the curative agent with the particular case.

There has been a fundamental idea pervading all through the history of the times-all work of the human mind. It is a general thought to which all special arguments, as well in the writings of Hippocrates as in our modern works of experimenting research, refer, and which in spite of all spite in diverging schools, has all this time remained the neutral ground upon which regulars and irregulars could not help meeting peaceably; although very often each did its best to spoil it, and neither gave himself much trouble about the most expeditious way to promote it, viz.: harmony. But there is a characteristic difference between the times of yore and our own. While in the days that lie far behind us harmony in science was only a petitio principii, it is nowadays the result of exact investigation of matter and force. The healthy equilibrium of the forces of the body presented itself by intuition always as an urgent necessity, but science lacked the intellectual means of satisfying this vital requirement theoretically. Now science has got that far, and consequently it would be a squandering of our theoretical riches if we were to build up our medical practice on any other principle than that of the universal relativity of matter and force, in which the healthy equilibrium of the dynamic powers of the body taken individually, as well as the conservation of energy, consists. On the entire domain of natural forces it is not their absolute

« ForrigeFortsæt »