THE EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM IN HOMEOPATHY

- American Institute of Homoeopathy, 1910, 65th Session, F. E. Ford.

Sometime since, a gentleman high in the councils of Homoeopathy wrote an article for a prominent journal of our profession decrying the present tendency to increased thoroughness in medical education. While there is much truth in what he says, especially in the reference made to the increasing difficulties in the way of the student of small resources, yet the facts must be faced and the profession be prepared to act accordingly.
 Whatever may be said to the contrary, the relative status of Homoeopathy is not now what it was one hundred, fifty or even twenty-five years ago. While the homoeopath, clinging closely to an unalterable law, a natural law, has not advanced in theory or in accuracy of prescription, his brother of the old school has revolutionized his practice, and the apparent difference between the two schools is by no means what it once was. Homoeopathy is no new thing. People do not now flock to the doctor's office because he puts "Homoeopathist" on his sign. But of what importance is this to us as a school, especially from an educational standpoint? Much, in more ways than one.
 It means that homoeopathy is being judged more and more on its merits. It means that the graduate of to-day must be a better man, relatively, in every way than he of our fathers' days. It means that the "burden of proof" is growing heavier. It spells "Necessity," with a big "N,", along certain lines. I believe in Homoeopathy, was brought up on it. Among my cherished relics is a little leather-covered case used by my mother and my grandmother to hold vials whose contents was used for themselves and their offspring. The homoeopaths of my native town have a large and influential clientele. Well and good. But they have been in business for twenty years and more, and succeeded to an unusually solid and successful practice founded under the old regime.
 What, then, is the necessity? Education, broad, complete, thorough, an education that will enable the homoeopath to meet the old school man on his own ground, or, at least, on the ground covered by the cardinal sciences, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, pathology and bacteriology and the arts of diagnosis, prognosis and surgery, in all its branches, including obstetrics and gynecology.
 While the most of our school have waked up to see the tendencies of the day, there are yet those who minimize the importance of these fundamentals, some even going so far as to say that diagnosis is of little or no importance. Such are making a vital mistake, especially if they convey these ideas to the minds of students. Why have so many homoeopathic colleges closed their doors in the last few years? Lack of students? For the most part, yes. Why this dearth? Three reasons present themselves: First, a fairly full field; second, increased efficiency of other methods of treatment; third, and more important, the activity of the state boards. These boards have justly or unjustly been more or less severely criticised, especially by the so-called "irregulars" and by those unable to pass the examinations.
 Then, again, many alumini of homoeopathic colleges are sending their sons to allopathic institutions. This is a well known fact. It is done, in all probability, in most cases, not because the fathers have lost faith in Homoeopathy, but because they want their sons to have what they themselves too often lack, a thorough education in the subjects aforementioned. Let us not be ostriches, hiding our heads beneath the cloak of Hahnemann, or like foolish patients, not consulting the physician until it is too late.
 The general standard of education, industrial as well as professional, is steadily rising. We must keep pace with it or inevitably fall behind. Why not "set the pace" for a general advance? We can in quality, if not in quantity. The American Institute is doing a splendid work by its propaganda of the true faith. Why not strengthen that and render the building indestructible by securing a firm foundation? It can be done if the alumni and friends of the several colleges unite to endow chairs for the teaching of the medical sciences and for the establishment and maintenance of well-equipped laboratories. Anatomy, physiology, chemistry, pathology and bacteriology cannot be properly taught by busy men in active practice who snatch a few hours for college work. Present conditions require trained men who can devote time and energy to the work. Such men are hard to find in the homoeopathic school for the reason that there has been little or no encouragement beyond the distinction of college connection. Adequate salaries and facilities should be provided and encouragement given to those willing to do research and advanced work. The various societies, from the national organization down, should give due honor to those who do something besides actively propagating the principles and practice of Homoeopathy.
 We face a "condition and not a theory." The state boards have come, and we believe rightfully, to stay. The A. M. A., while somewhat drastic, is on the right track. There should be a uniform standard of medical education, therapeutics excepted. This should extend to all healers, Christian scientists, and any who make any pretense of dealing with mind or body. I believe that our colleges can, with proper facilities, equip first-class men in a first-class manner to do first-class work. The public expects results, and it is our business to provide the same. If we do not our rivals will be called in and we will lose our case. The colleges must properly care for their students from the first or else keep or snatch them from old school hands. The latter expedients are really unnecessary, besides being annoying.
 The college that accepts Tom, Dick and Harry as students, coddles them through the course and allows them to slip through at the end, competent or incompetent, sends them to probable disaster at the hands of the state boards, or if, by chance, having passed these, to the tender mercies of a long-suffering public and the scorn of their well trained colleagues. From now on let it never be said that any college bearing the banner of Hahnemann does this. The old gentleman, himself a thorough and distinguished student, a scientist of no mean ability, a man of great strength of character and evidently a strict disciplinarian, would almost rise from the grave to protest against such abuses in his name. We cannot afford to shut our eyes and ears. Shall we, as a school, let drift or steer for the open sea? I believe that we will read the signs of the times and clear all obstacles. The A. I. H. at its coming session can do no better work than to thoroughly sift the situation and apply the indicated remedy.
- F. E. Ford.