LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE OSTEOPATHS [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—I shall be obliged if you will allow me space to answer the letter on osteopathy by Dr. Graham Little, M.1'., in the Spectator of December 5th. Dr. Little complains that " A Layman " from the shelter of his anonymity accuses him of making an unfair statement. I go farther than " A Layman " and accuse Dr. Little of being either deliberately unfair or ignorant of the subject on which he presumes to write with such authority. He proceeds to " deal " with the statement by evading it. Ile explains the supervision the General Medical Council have over Medical Practitioners and Dental Practitioners. Then, having restricted the possibilities of registration to the Medical Register and Dental Register, to neither of which the Osteopath is eligible, he finishes dealing with him as a serious person and commences to vilify him as an ignorant visionary. Having drawn attention to the cow with two horns, he points out that it would be ridiculous to have a cow with three horns, especially as the third horn is so small. Trues later on he suggests, instead of a third horn, osteopathy might be used as an appendage, but that is a position the osteopath would fail to appreciate. It never occurred to Dr. Little that

there could possibly be another cow in the pasture—that is, Register of Osteopaths independent of the General Medical

Council.

Dr. Little next fatuously cites cases where a mistaken- diagnosis had been made, but even this he does badly, or with intention to mislead, for .of _the three " concrete instances." which he uses, two are those of a bone-setter, and have no. bearing on the subject under discussion.. Concrete instances: prove little beyond the fallibility of human nature. It would. take a much larger journal than the Spectator to record the failures in diagnosis of registered medical practitioners. That does not, however, blind one to the . good work done by medical. practitioners, nor does it condemn medical practice. Osteopaths recognize the medical profession as the honourable.

and learned one which Dr..Little claims, but no more honour- able or learned than the osteopathic profession and certainly led by a much less charitable (to put it mildly) group of leaders—it Dr. Little is, a sample.

" A Layman " is -not, mistaken in stating that it takes four years of highly skilled training and study to acquire the technique of esteopathy. It is absolutely essential that an osteopath study and -understand all branches of medical sciences, except materia medics, to comprehend and use,

osteopathic technique. Hence the reason .medical -men should be able to learn osteopathic technique in one year. They are already familiar with the body in health and out of health, and quickly learn the application of osteopathic technique and principles.

Dr. Little's . statement that three-fourths of the time spent by osteopaths in college is devoted to securing a smattering of the medical sciences is a gross libel, and the following figures prove the unfairness of the statement. Taking the five leading medical colleges in America—Cornell, Harvard, Jefferson, North-Western University and Washington Univer- sity—and comparing them with the five leading osteopathic colleges—Kirksville, Los Angeles, Des Moines, Chicago, and Philadelphia—we find that the average number of school hours in the five medical colleges is 4,542, while in the five osteopathic colleges the average number of hours is 4,953. The subjects compared are anatomy, physiology, chemistry, pathology, bacteriology, diagnosis, practice of medicine, surgery, physio- therapy and leading clinical subjects. If they acquire only a smattering, why is their average in State Boards Examina- tions as high as that of the medical practitioner ?

Dr. Little has had these figures before but chose to forget them in writing his " unbiased " letters.

Another misstatement he makes is that " The theory of osteopathy postulates that the primary cause of every disease is some interference with blood supply or nerve function, always caused by a dislocation of one of the small bones which

-make up the spinal column."

As far back as- 1899, in the Journal of Osteiipathy, Dr-

Still made the following statement :-

" Osteopathy is. not exclusively a treatment of mechanical therapeutics, although. manipulation enters very largely into the work. It is a system that includes all methods of healing that have been found trustworthy and scientific, whether it be mechanical correction of the tissues of the body, the giving of proper food, the use of antidotes, care and attention to hygienic rules or nursing and and various aids to prevent and relieve, the ravages of disease."

Medicine has made immense advances since 1874, and so has osteopathy. To say that the innumerable chemical; physiological, microscopical and biological tests of disease meet with ignorant scorn from osteopaths, or that bacteriology is to them a sealed book is utterly absurd and untrue. The most recent findings, if scientific, are taught in osteopathic

colleges. and practised by osteopaths. The reference to

radiology is particularly unfortunate, as I have had within the past week, in my own practice, two cases in which four men on the Medical Register- had made absolutely wrong diagnosis simply because they failed to have X-ray photographs taken. Medical criticism and misleading, statements arc " little ":

things to _which we .osteopaths are becoming accustomed. The enclosed manifesto, to which. Dr. Little referred, will give your readers a fair idea of our qualifications, - what we want and why we want it.--I am, Sir, &c., WILLIAM COOPER, D.O.

(Secretary, Legislative Committee . Mitisli Osteopathic AssOciation).

[We regret that we have not space to publish the manifesto. —En. Spectator.]