« ZurückWeiter »
be filled to overflowing. A certain, or rather uncertain, amount of knowledge is admitted by all to be requisite; but the general feeling - erroneous we grant it to be -- is that high literary and scientific distinction is not necessary, and may be injurious in the transaction of the business concerns of life; hence we not unfrequently see the learned and accomplished physician dismissed, and the lowest empiric consulted in his place. It is strange, but not less true, that an individualordinarily-and even more than ordinarily--intelligent will consent to confide in the professional judgment of one whose opinions on any other matter he would contemn.
On the subject of "College Clinics,” Dr. Watson dwells at some length, properly urging, that “to dispensary service, when con. fined to the management of such affections as legitimately belong to it, there is no direct objection;" but college dispensaries should never be held up as sufficient to supply the place of hospitals.
The college cliniques, he remarks, were first started in a weighbouring city, where hospital privileges had been so much restricted as to be of little service to the winter students.” In this he is altogether misinformed,-if he applies the remark to Philadelphia.
“As an expedient for supplying this deficiency, they were unquestionably acceptable on the same principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. They were at first called by their true name; but this attracting ltitle notice was soon altered. The example thus set, and the title thus assumed, were copied by the schools of other places.”
Dr. Watson does not here do justice to the city of his choice. We believe, that much of the credit that attaches to the college clinics helongs to it, and that the very name was applied to the "clinical service at the University of New York before it was adopted here.
“ The clinique epidemic of the colleges, as my friend Dr. Bell has happily expressed it,” (we do not see wherein the happiness lies,] "was last winter at its height. The students, one and all, were affected by it, and the hospitals were forsaken.”
Certainly not in Philadelphia. The observation may and doubtless does apply to New York, but not to this city.
The lecturer adds
abated. Such I am told, is the fact in Philadelphia, where it first broke out. The University of Pennsylvania, and some of the other schools there have already abandoned their dispensaries, and are now supplying their second course students with hospital tickets at their own expense.”
Some one has evidently been gulling the worthy author. There is not a word of real history in this quotation. There has been no abandoninent of their clinics by other schools, and consequent supplying of tickets to the hospitals gratuitously. The clinic of the Jefferson Medical College was never in so flourishing a state, and so extensively useful. One other clinic has been added to the list--that of the Franklin College. The Pennsylvania College has never had a regular clinic, and gives—as it did last to second class students tickets to the Pennsylvania Hospital; but no such thing has been done by the University of Pennsylvania, which-if it has abandoned the name of college clinics, professes to teach--mutato nomine-_" demonstrative medicine" on one day of the week, and “demonstrative surgery" on another! It would be difficult to find any where a sentence in which so much error-doubtless unintentional-is contained in so small a compass.
Our opinion of hospital attendance for masses has already been expressed, and as masses must be supplied in the best mode that is practicable, we do not hesitate to affirm, as our conviction, that the introduction of “ College Clinics” — we use the term generally appropriated to them, and see no valid objection to itis the most important single addition to medical educational resources that has been proposed in recent periods.
“ Gentlemen,” says Dr. Watson, “ if I know my own mind, I have no disposition to draw invidious comparisons, or to speak of the relative advantages of rival cities or of rival institutions."
Why then does he exclaim, after having made the erroneous statements referred to above :—and if hospital attendance there [meaning in Philadelphia,] is beyond measure superior to their misnamed cliniques, she had before shown that both were desirable, and had not instituted an “invidious comparison,”'] what are we to think of the facilities for practical instruction enjoyed by sındents within the walls of the New York Hospital?”
We do not see the sequitur. If the hospital attendance in Philadelphia be better than the college clinics, what are the facilities for practical instruction enjoyed by students within the walls of the New York Hospital ? Such appears to be the proposition, which we are not Cocker enough to solve.
We have no doubt of the value of the New York Hospital, and of the entire honesty of purpose of the author of the lecture before us; yet it must be admitted by the best friends of the Institution, that the picture of it given by him savours of hyperbole.
“You may,” he observes, “in other countries find larger hospitals, but none presenting a greater variety of acute and important diseases; you may find in other hospitals abler teachers, but none so [?] willing as we have been to give you our time and services for nothing. You may find in some few other institutions greater opportunities for autopsic [a vile word] examinations ; you may find in the cabinets of foreign societies, more valuable pathological collections; you may, in other cities, even find larger libraries than ours; but look for all these together in any other hospital either at home or abroad, and you will look for them in vain [?] I say it without fear of contradiction, you will not find a single hospital to compare with this,-not one that contains within itself so many advantages for both theoretical and practical study as the New York Hospital.” p. 19. Shame, then, on the profession of New York !-Shame, on the Professors of the two “rival schools,” the course of education in which “ is becoming every year more and more elevated!" Shame on the six or seven hundred medical students in the city during the last winter--that in the second surgical department, during the greater part of the winter, “it was a rare thing to see the face of a single student."
The peroration of the lecturer is judicious and wholly unob. jectionable. It is well worthy of being retained in the recollection of the clinical student.
“During the coming winter, it will be well for every medical student here, but more particularly for such as are not prepared to remain in town after the close of the college session, to visit the hospital daily. Let nothing prevent you from attending at the hour set apart for the purpose.
Come not merely with your ears open, as students often do.
Come not to gaze about the wards with idle curiosity. But rather, come like philosophers, with all your faculties awake, for examining, comparing, judging, and thinking for yourselves; and working, 100, for yourselves, at every opportunity.
Pick out your own cases, and study these, and note these for yourselves. Do not attempt to listen to all that is said with the view of remembering it but listen well to what is said of the cases on your own list, and see if it be true. Attempt not too much.
Do not fall into the penrile fondness of hunting after strange sights, rare diseases, and great cases. The dressing of an ulcer, the setting of a bone, the treatment of a pleurisy, pneumonia, or fever,-these, and such as these, should be your study here. Striking cases you may look at; but the business that should fix your attention, is that which best prepares you for the daily business of the profession.
Finally, avoid that morbid appetite for surgical operations, so long magnified and so much over-rated. Surgery is a good thing, a useful, an excellent thing in its way; but too much of it is a great evil. And the sooner you find out this for yourselves, the better for your patients. p. 19.
Dr. Bullitt's lecture is his maiden effort at the Saint Louis University. It contains much that is interesting and generally well expressed. “My primary allegiance,” he remarks, “is to the general cause of medical science, and then to the cause of the medical department of the Saint Louis University ;” and he expresses to his class a hope, that he may be able so to discharge the duties of teacher in the institution, as to make his “labours tributary to the common good of our common calling.” Such we have little doubt will be the case.
We had marked one or two passages for extract and comment, but we cannot find space for them. This same circumstance will prevent us from giving more than a passing notice of the other introductories before us.
The lecture of Dr. Harrison inquires into the obligations of the medical profession to society, and the obligations of the public to the medical profession; and is an interesting discourse.
That of Dr. Patterson indicates a cultivated intellect. The style is vigorous, tinctured somewhat with the German, and perhaps with Carlylism, which we abhor; but it is never mystical, and always sententious.
The lectures of Dr. Huston and Dr. Meigs were delivered before the class of Jefferson Medical College—the largest, we may add, that has ever attended medical lectures in this country; and therefore sufficient to inspire the learned professors with unwonted energy. Dr. Huston's discourse is a scorching and able disclosure of Hahnemannism, clearly expressed-and it ought to convince all, who are susceptible of conviction, that the whole infinitesimal system is founded on folly, and too often practised in imposture.
The discourse of Dr. Meigs is full of the fire and enthusiasm which have ever characterized him. “I acknowledge” he says,
that I am an enthusiastic admirer of my profession. My speech shows it, and my whole past life is a perpetual proof of it. But I love that profession as a ministry, not as a trade."
The following observations on what has been sarcastically termed “book learning,” or “book knowledge,” from one who is so eminent in the practical exercise of his calling, are a satisfactory answer to those ignoramuses who pretend to despise books.
“Gentlemen, no man can study medicine by himself. He must have help and that help comes from books. I never could have learned why I ought to do thus and so, to keep a lady patieut from bleeding to death, or from perishing with convulsions, out of my own primary independent observation and reflection. If I have done so, I thank the fathers, as I thank every good man—whether Greek or Roman, Arabian or European who in ages past has put upon record the things that have been observed in medicine, and if I know those things I owe that knowledge to them; I could never have learned it of myself. Therefore, I love books. I think there is no good physician without their aid-nor can be none. Instead of disparaging books and authors, I would rather glority and honour them when meritorious.” p. 8.
The lectures of Professors Bedford and Gilbert are strictly introductory to their courses. We would remind the former, who says, that!" Doctor Robert Lee, of London, has recently made some valuable contributions on the subject of the nerves of the uterus,”—that the nerves depicted by Dr. Lee have, by a still more recent observer-Mr. Beck-whose memoir has received