LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
THE OSTEOPATHS [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
StR,—Will you kindly afford me space to make a few observations in reply to Dr. E. Graham Little, whose courteous reference to myself in the last sentence of his letter of the 1st inst. I fully appreciate ?
1. My only reason for anonymity is that I wished— and still wish—to avoid any ground of difference with my medical friends, for whose skill and kindness during a fairly long life I am profoundly grateful.
2. I said in my previous letter that I did not think it fair of Dr. Graham Little to refer to the osteopaths as desiring admission to the Medical Register when, " as I understood the case," they claimed not to be admitted to the Medical Register but to a Register of Osteopaths. Dr. Graham Little in his last letter still contends that osteopaths " as he understands their desires, seek registration by the General Medical Council." When I made the contrary statement I had not seen any official account of the osteo- paths' claim. I based it on what I had heard from personal friends who had been under osteopathic treatment. Before posting my letter, however, I telephoned to the only osteo- path I knew (whose acquaintance I had made socially), and asked if I was correct in supposing that the osteopaths did not ask for admission to the Medical Register, and I was assured that I was. In view of Dr. Graham Little's contrary understanding as quoted above, I have obtained a copy of the outline of a Bill prepared for the British Osteopathic Association which, if passed by Parliament, would give statutory powers for the establishment of an Osteopathic* Board. The Board would be empowered . to appoint a Registrar, to establish a_ Register of Osteopaths, to make Regulations (to be approved by the Privy Council and subject to approval by Parliament) for carrying the registra- tion of osteopaths into effect, and so on. It would also afford an aggrieved person an appeal from the decision of the Osteopathic Board. to a Court of Law. There is not, however, one Ivord in the_ Bill from. beginning to end about the General Medical Council or the Medical Register, and my original statement, therefore, that the osteopaths are not seeking admission to , the _Medical Register seems to be borne out.
3. I am not competent to .discnss Dr. Graham Little's criticisms of the theory of osteopathy or of the medical training, or lack of medical training, of osteopaths. If the osteopaths have an answer to these criticisms, it is for them to give it, and I think it would be well if they did so. All I can say is that I am convinced by the experience of personal friends of my own that, in cases such as theirs at any rate, osteopathic .treatment can relieve suffering when other
medical remedies have failed to do so. I contend, therefore, that other sufferers should be enabled to obtain it under medical direction, and that to this end the claim of the osteopaths to have an official Register of Osteopaths estab- lished should be met. If individuals chose of their own initiative to seek osteopathic treatment, and such unfor- tunate results followed as Dr. Graham Little describes, the 'responsibility would be their own and not their doctors'.
It is satisfactory to learn from Dr. Graham Little's letter that there is a movement in the Royal Colleges to secure the " establishment of a diploma, obtainable after graduation, to comprise the study of manipulative movements and cognate procedures." If this movement should bear fruit ; if the special technique of osteopathy should become part of post-graduate medical training ; and if graduates in sufficient numbers obtained a diploma enabling them to put their special knowledge to use, a great deal would be gained. But all these seem rather large " ifs," and much water may run under London Bridge before that gain is secured. I do not think these possibilities of future ought to delay or stand in the way of what I venture to believe would be present
Previous page
