IN the June number of the Gazette we took occasion to mention some of the practical disadvantages which result from the cultivation of specialties, referring particularly to the unavoidable ignorance of specialists of one class concerning not only the technique but the therapeutic achievements of those of any other class.

Another serious disadvantage is the frequent over-lapping of their fields of practical work; each not only claiming to do, but actually doing the legitimate work of some other, in a manner perfectly satisfactory to every one but the specialist, who is deprived both of his patient and his fee.

Such experiences are common, and are to be regretted because they tend to fan into activity the smouldering embers of professional envy and jealousy which would better be left to die out, and also because they tend to confuse and mislead the mind of the patient. Not being able to understand how it is possible for two methods of treatment, each of which he supposes to be specifically adapted to diseases of entirely. different organs and regions of the body, to produce the same curative effects, he concludes that the one he did not take, together with the physician who advocated it, is more or less of a fraud.

The following incident known by the writer to have really occurred, and which, undoubtedly, is only one of the many frequently occurring, is given in illustration of the subject we are pursuing.

and under the professional care of a specialist who successfully treats a variety of chronic ailments by a peculiar method of enriching the blood, had a little daughter who, at the same time, was being treated by an oculist for an ulcer upon the cornea.

As the ulcer failed to be relieved by many weeks of constant treatment which consisted of the use of local remedies with some general directions in regard to diet and exercise, the mother, in her anxiety, spoke to her own physician about the case. The doctor, after learning all he could about it, told the mother that the trouble was caused by an impoverished state of the blood, and that it would disappear as soon as the blood was restored to its normal condition. He further said, by way of emphasis, "the very same treatment that you are taking will cure the ulcer, in a short time, without the aid of local treatment of any kind."

"Well," replied the mother, "I don't see how general treatment, such as I am taking, can cure a local trouble of the eye, but you are helping me wonderfully, and the oculist told me that G's blood is too thin. I am sure your treatment will help her in this respect, and, if the ulcer should not improve, local treatment can be given later just as well. I promised the oculist to continue his treatment two weeks longer. If the ulcer is not decidedly better at the end of that time, I will place the case in your hands."

At the expiration of the stated time the

no visible evidence of any change for the better, and the case was transferred to the care of the mother's physician.

After the daughter had taken, for a period of two weeks, practically the same treatment the mother was receiving, the condition of the eye was greatly improved, and a continuation of the same treatment for two weeks longer resulted in a perfect

'cure.

No auxiliary local treatment of any kind, except care as to cleanliness, was employed, nor was any special directions given in regard to diet.

These battles of the specialists, although always resulting in chagrin and bitterness of feeling to one of the participants, carry with them a lesson of great importance to those who rightly heed it. They teach that special organs do not, except in a theoretical sense, possess an isolated existence; that, barring slight modifications of structure and form, their tissues are the same as those existing in other parts of the body; that their circulation, nutrition and even recuperative power are derived from the general system; that no amount or kind of merely local treatment is able to purify the depraved fluids which, in diseased states. and conditions, are constantly passing through them; that although the ability to make an accurate differential diagnosis is commendable and necessary, further than this, it affords no assistance in formulating an appropriate course of treatment, and, lastly, that, to become a successful practitioner, the specialist must always make the best methods of general treatment a very important part of his therapeutic resources.

Therapeutic incidents, like the one just related, occur so frequently that they often lead us to doubt that, in any proper sense, there really is such a condition as a local disease for which specific, local treatment is necessary to effect a cure.

There are several facts which strongly favor the negative side of this question. In the first place, with all our study, research and experiment we have not yet been able to discover an absolute specific or antidote for a single one of the many diseases with

which humanity is afflicted. This fact, of itself, is pretty good evidence that no disease has either a local origin or abiding place. In the second place the general practitioner has learned, from repeated experience, that the most serious, so-called local affections often rapidly and permanently disappear, without any local treatment whatever, under the influence of remedies given for no other purpose than to improve the general health. Lastly, we find that the most celebrated and successful specialists, even among those whose practice is limited to diseases of such vital organs as the lungs, heart or kidneys, make the least use of local remedies and "specific medication," their greatest dependence being upon the rigidly enforced rules of hygiene which as we all know produce only general effects.

If the logic of facts compel us to admit. that, in a therapeutic sense, local diseases have no real existence, then specialties, beyond their educative value in assisting us more readily to obtain a better understanding of the causes, nature and effects of diseases, serve no practical purpose and their more or less early disappearance may safely be predicted.

PHYSIOLOGICAL SINS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT-DRESS.

RECENTLY I had the pleasure of listening to an uncommonly eloquent and impressive sermon by Bishop Fowler of the M. E. Church. In one of his illustrations he had occasion to compare the reasoning power of man with that of the lower animals and insinuated that, if man's capacity for reasoning were always to be judged by his conduct, we would be obliged to deny that he possessed this mental attribute in any superior degree.

While we cannot deny that the good doctor's insinuation contains food for thought it does not necessarily imply that by nature we are any less the superior beings we believe ourselves to be. Even should we

eliminate every element of doubt the statement contains and accept every word of it as literally true, it would not mean that we must consider ourselves as living upon the same mental level as the brutes. Man's mental powers are undoubtedly greater than those of any of the lower animals. The evidence of this, however, does not lie, as many suppose, in his possession of a reasoning faculty but in his ability to reason abstractly.

But we must beg to disagree with the learned and distinguished clergyman when he insinuates, further, that, judging by their conduct, animals often reason to a better, practical purpose than man. I am sure that if man does not always act in a logical manner with reference to practical matters, it is because he reasons from false or uncertain premises rather than because his reasoning powers are defective. Animals reason from premises which are always true because unerringly chosen by instinct, while man, in his choosing, is obliged to depend, for the truth of his premises, upon acquired knowledge which is often false and misleading.

This fact fully explains the difference in conduct between man and animals. The latter are compelled to follow the unvarying dictates of instinct because they know no other way-no other course is open to them. Whenever man's knowledge concerning any subject is definite and complete it becomes, for him, as unerring a guide as instinct is for the animal, and his actions in relation to it are perfectly logical. He does not deliberately stick his finger in the fire because he positively knows what will inevitably occur, neither does he voluntarily disregard the laws of gravitation by jumping from a high building, even though such an act would provide him with the shortest and quickest route to the point he might be most anxious to reach, because he absolutely knows what the disastrous result would be.

Ignorance, then, is man's greatest enemy -the most formidable stumbling block he will ever encounter in his path of intellec

tual progress. It is the real, but too often the unsuspected, cause of all the violations of the moral as well as (accidents excepted) the physical laws of his being, and consequently also the cause of all unhappiness and suffering. If our knowledge of these laws was what it should and could be, it would prove such an incentive to obedience that disobedience would be impossible.

The laws upon which our physical welfare depends are not difficult to understand if studied in the right spirit and in the right way. Many, I know, hold the reverse of this statement to be true and, as proof of the correctness of their view, point to the diversity of opinion which exists in regard to the simplest matters of hygiene. But this confusion and lack of agreement, when rightly considered, is evidence of ignorance rather than knowledge, for knowledge tends to harmony and unity instead of antagonism and diversity of opinions and ideas.

This uncertain state of knowledge, so painfully evident at the present time, concerning the physical laws whose action and effects we are powerless to change or avoid, is no evidence that we are unable to understand or apply them. It is only an indication that we have reached a certain point of advancement in the effort to determine our relation to them.

I daily hear expressions of wonder and surprise that we posses so little accurate and dependable knowledge concerning the laws of health. But when we consider that it has been only a short time, comparatively, since any attention, whatever, has been paid to these matters, we cease to wonder at the paucity of our knowledge only to wonder still more that humanity should have waited so long without manifesting more practical interest in a matter of such vital importance.

This indifference and delay finds an explanation in the fact that the intellectual age of the human race is just beginning to dawn. Until this period in the process of evolution was reached, intelligent thinking,

with few exceptions, was an unknown art. The conditions of life were so hard and exacting that the great mass of humanity had no time to care or think about anything bebeyond the immediate, physical necessities of daily life. Moreover they were too ignorant to realize their condition or to make any intelligent effort to improve it. While they feared disease more than they enjoyed health, they believed that both were arbitrarily dispensed by Divine Providence, and, consequently, the idea that they were, in any way, responsible for either condition never entered their minds. Under these circumstances disease was naturally looked upon as the positive condition-the subject of anxiety, discussion and study. Health never interfered with their duties or pleasures and therefore gave them no concern.

When physicians arose in the land and multiplied, they accepted and sanctioned the same erroneous views of disease and devoted all of their time and energy to its study, with the hope of being able to discover a remedy or antidote for each of its possible forms. But after years of zealous work the problem remained far from being solved. The only visible result of this effort was a multiplication of both diseases and remedies.

At last the time arrived when the rising tide of general knowledge flowed into the minds of the most enlightened of the medical profession sufficiently to enable them to perceive the true relation that exists between health and disease. We now know that health is the positive condition and therefore the one to be assiduously studied and cultivated-that it is our normal birthright and altogether too precious to be sold, as it too often is, for a mess of pottage. Although a free gift by inheritance, it comes to each of us, as such, only as the result of ancestral obedience to exacting but beneficent laws, and it cannot be retained except by personal observance of the same laws.

Disease is the negative condition and, fortunately, one which is both unnecessary and avoidable. In whatever form it may

appear, barring accident and injury, it is the result of physiological transgression, and its victim, however harsh and unfeeling the appellation may seem to those unaccustomed to view the matter in this light, is a criminal-a self-convicted violator of physiological laws-laws too plain and simple not to be understood by any one of ordinary intelligence, and which we should obey not only from a sense of duty but because to do so will always result in our greatest happiness.

This advanced view of health and disease explains why so little progress has heretofore been made in the study of hygiene and health. We have mistaken the shadow for the substance. While most desirous to learn about life and health we have devoted all of our time and attention to the study of disease and death. Our conduct has been as foolish and irrational as would be that of a botanist who, imbued with a desire to learn the effect of sunlight upon a certain species of plant, should anxiously collect and arrange all possible data concerning its behavior when constantly exposed to the influence of darkness; or of that of a railway company which, with the avowed purpose of discovering the best and safest method of transportation, should confine its investigations and experiments to the study of wrecks for the purpose of discovering the quickest and cheapest means for their removal.

But the fact that health and disease are both the result of environment and personal conduct the former the reward of obedience to, and the latter the punishment for. disobedience of physical laws, and further, that it is in the power of every one to possess and enjoy (?) either condition at will, is still too recently discovered to be universally known and accepted. The majority in every community still erroneously believe that illness is caused by some germ or morbific influence for whose presence in the system they are in no wise responsible, and which only a material antidote or remedy of some kind can remove. Their conceptions of health, although a little more

rational, are still too narrow and incomplete. They have learned something of its origin and nature, but very little of the means by which it is maintained, and still less of its true relation to, and power over, disease. The idea that in order to possess and enjoy health it must be daily lived has not yet penetrated their minds, and to suggest to them that good health is the only natural and all-sufficient remedy for every disease, or, in other words, that the direct treatment of diseases by the artificial means generally employed is unnecessary and often dangerous; and that the natural and rational method of cure consists only in the use of such means, properly modified, as are necessary to maintain and promote the healthful functions of those who are well, is to lay yourself liable to the suspicion either that you are regaling them with a huge joke or that you are a fit subject for a lunatic asylum.

Our conduct is always the practical expression of our mental attitude concerning any given subject. No one deliberately commits acts which he positively knows are injurious. Hence when we see any person doing things which are in direct violation of well-established laws relating to the preservation of health we may safely conclude that his conduct is the result of ignorance-ignorance of such density that it either prevents the knowledge of these laws from reaching his intelligence, or permits him, foolishly, to believe that he is exempt from the penalties which invariably follow their infraction.

There are many ways in which the laws pertaining to health are violated, but in none, perhaps, so thoughtlessly as in the manner of dress. This method of sinning is not confined to individuals of any particular class or station in life. It is well nigh universal. The wealthy and cultivated are as guilty as the poor and ignorant. So far as I know there is not a civilized nation on the face of the earth which does not violate, in some flagrant and serious manner, the obvious and simple rules of hygienic dressing. Although the majority of us really believe

that clothes were made for the benefit of the body, we too frequently act as if the body existed for the benefit of the clothes. Contrary to our better knowledge we allow ourselves to be guided in all matters pertaining to the shape and design of our garments, by the decision of dame Fashion. This fair, but fickle goddess, having no body of her own, and no knowledge of the location and function of the vital parts and organs of God's masterpiece, does not hesitate to subject it to any treatment which will compel its outlines to assume such a form as her whimsical notions may, for the time, declare to be "artistically correct." She pads it heavily in one place, gives it scanty protection in this region, or none at all in another, causes constriction here or makes compression there, with utter indifference to either the immediate or remote effect such arbitrary changes may have upon the health of her subjects. Hence it is not at all strange that so much attention is paid to the so-called artistic features of our apparel and so little to the more essential ones demanded by good hygiene.

That our ancestors, hundreds of years ago, with their limited and imperfect knowledge of the laws of health should have submitted to such unnecessary physiological indignities is not surprising, but that we, in this enlightened age, should continue to do so, is without excuse.

(To be continued.)

SPINAL CURVATURES AND THEIR TREATMENT BY MOVEMENT CURE.

BY LUTHER J. INGERSOLL, M.D.,

Denver, Colo.

It is not my present purpose to dwell upon the different forms of spinal curvature, nor their causes, which are seldom known, but to speak briefly of their symptoms, course, treatment and results, with three cases. I shall only consider lateral curvature. When curvature of the spine