The Press. WEEDNSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1896. DOCTORS AND THE "LAY PRESS."

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9499, 19 August 1896, Page 4

The Press. WEEDNSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1896. DOCTORS AND THE "LAY PRESS."

We fear our friend " Anti-Quack " is getting angry. This is a pity, because anger does not conduce either to clearness of logical reasoning or to improvement of manners. It does lead to disingenuousness, as is evidenced' by our correspondent's insinuation that this journal is in the habit of encouraging quackery. The sole foundation as yet adduced for this charge is that we have recently published methods of treatment pursued respectively by a registered medical practitioner in Victoria and the President of the Australasian Medical Congress. To draw a red herring across the scent our correspondent refers to the advertisements of patent medicines which appear in our columns, as in those of every other newspaper in tbe world. Every child knows that the statements made in such advertisements are made on the authority of the advertiser, and that the paper does not endorse them. Nevertheless, a good deal of supervision is exercised over our advertising columns, and we refuse numbers of advertisements which are obviously fraudulent, or against public morality. It is manifestly ridiculous, however, to expect a newspaper, before inserting an advertisement about any article, whether a patent medicine or a knife cleaner, to satisfy itself first that the article will do all that the proprietor claims for it. We can no more guarantee that than we can guarantee that our medical friends, when writing to the " lay Press," will keep to facts or aot up to the dignity of their profession.

We are as anxious as the most high-minded medical practitioner can be that invalids should be protected from being buoyed up by falsa hopes or induced to waste either their money or time—often more precious stillon useless remedies. We say, however, that this protection is not to be brought about by leaving the discussion of all medical questions to medical papers. The patients are sure to hear of the supposed remedies, but comparatively few of them will see the medical journals; and our contention is that the " lay " Press may discharge a very beneficial function in clearing away error. Take this case of methylblue for example. It could not have excited our medical friends more had it been the brightest red. We published the statement of the Victorian doctor for what it was worth, but scrupulously refrained from recommending the remedy on our own account. Thereupon our correspondent " Anti-Quack " and Dr. Nedwdll wrote to us showing that methyl-blue was not a new remedy, that it had been tried years ago and abandoned by the medical profession as useless. Surely this is not encouraging quackery or even raising false hopes. We commended our correspondents for furnishing such valuable information, and expressed a hope that other

doctors would be equally ready to give information when it was likely to be of public benefit. " Anti-Quack " says of this that " no more indecent invita- " tion has previously been given." Why he calls it indecent he does not condescend to explain. When he has cooled down a little probably ho will wish the sentence had not been written. But we claim the right for the " lay Press" to deal with medical questions on broader grounds. Even our correspondent has to admit that the attempt to confine such subjects to the medical Press has not led to all the advance in the science of healing that might be desired. His statement as to the modes of treatment that have been tried only to ba abandoued, and his enquiry whether " one in a thousand stands the test of ten years' experience," does not open up a very hopeful prospect to the lay public who have the misfortune to fall ill. The free discussion of scientific problems in journals having a worldwide circulation sets myriads of busy brains at work, and many important results have been thereby achieved. We see no reason for believing that medical science is an exeeptiou, and that its chief hope of progress lies in stifling discussion outside the mystic circle o£ its professional devotees. We know/pretty well the limitations of the medical art. Wβ know, too, the noble I efforts made by thousands of earnest workers to overcome those limitations, and it is far from our desire to sneer at the result of their efforts. It is easy for " Anti-Quack " to indulge in gibes at the " ignorance " of the " lay writers" who touch on medical subjects, but must not doctors themselves ackuowledge their own ignorance ? The best of them certainly do acknowledge it. The ablest and* most distinguished among them are most modest in their claims as to what medicine in its present stage is able to accomplish. It is the shallow man in all professions who is most ready to strut about in the plumes of superior knowledge, and to sneer at the "ignorance" of others. For ourselves, we shall continue to pursue the same policy in the future as we nave done in the past. We regard it as the duty of the lay Press to look after the interests of the lay public, and, if those intorests demand it, we shall deal as freely with medical subjects as with any other. There may be occasions on which the interests of doctors and those of the lay public may clash, in which case the medical Press may be safely trusted to look after those who are its own especial clients. In cases where those respective interests do not clash, the medical profession—which as a whole holds a very high place in our respect —will find us as ready to stand up for its legitimate claims in the future as we have been in the past.