SOME DEFINITIONS AND HISTORIES.

The story of the origin of Osteopathy is romantic enough to appeal to the fancy of impressionists. It is almost as romantic as the finding of the mysterious stones by the immortal Joe Smith. In this story is embodied the life history of an old-time doctor and pioneer hero in his restless migrations about the frontiers of Kansas and Missouri. His thrilling experiences in the days of border wars and through the Civil War are narrated, and how the germ of the idea of the true cause and cure of disease was planted in his mind by the remark of a comrade as the two lay concealed in a thicket for days to escape border ruffians. Then, later, how the almost simultaneous death of two or three beloved children, whom all his medical learning and that of other doctors he had summoned had been powerless to save, had caused him to renounce forever the belief that drugs could cure disease. He believed Nature had a true system, and for this he began a patient search. He wandered here and there, almost in the condition of the religious reformers of old, who “wandered up and down clad in sheep-skins and goat-hides, of whom the world was not worthy.” In the name of suffering humanity he desecrated the grave of poor Lo, that he might read from his red bones some clue to the secret.

One Osteopathic journal claims to tell authentically how Still was led to the discovery of the “great truth.” It states that by accidentally curing a case of asthma by “fooling with the bones of the chest,” he was led to the belief that bones out of normal position cause disease.

Still himself tells a rather different story in a popular magazine posing of late years as a public educator in matters of therapeutics. In this magazine Still tells how he discovered the principles of Osteopathy by curing a terrible headache resting the back of his neck across a swing made of his father’s plowlines, and next by writhing on his back across a log to relieve the pain of dysentery. Accidentally the “lesion” was corrected, or the proper center “inhibited,” and his headache and flux immediately cured.

You can take your choice of these various versions of the wonderful discovery.

Ever since Osteopathy began to attract attention, and people began to inquire “What is it?” its leading promoters have vied with each other in trying to construct a good definition for their “great new science.”

Here are some of the definitions:

“Osteopathy is the science of drugless healing.” For a genuine “lesion” Osteopath that would not do at all. It is too broad and gives too much scope to the physicians who would do more than “pull bones.”

“Osteopathy is practical anatomy and physiology skillfully and scientifically applied as manual treatment of disease.” That definition suits better, because of the “manual treatment.” If you are a true Osteopath you must do it all with your hands. It will not do to use any mechanical appliances, for if you do you cannot keep up the impression that you are “handling the body with the skilled touch of a master who knows every part of his machine.”

“The human body is a machine run by the unseen force called life, and that it may run harmoniously it is necessary that there be liberty of blood, nerves, and arteries from the generating point to destination.” This definition may be impressive to the popular mind, but, upon analysis, we wonder if any other string of big words might not have had the same effect. “Liberty of blood” is a proposition even a stupid medical man must admit. Of course, there must be free circulation of blood, and massage, or hot and cold applications, or exercise, or anything that will stimulate circulation, is rational. But when “liberty of blood” is mentioned, what is meant by “liberty of arteries”?

“Osteopathy seeks to obtain perfect skeletal alignment and tonic ligamentous, muscular and facial relaxation.” Some Osteopaths and other therapeutic reformers (?) have contended that medical men purposely used “big words” and Latin names to confound the laity. What must we think of the one just given as a popular definition?

A good many Osteopaths are becoming disgusted with the big words, technical terms and “high-sounding nothings” used by so many Osteopathic writers. The limit of this was never reached, however, until an A.B., Ph.D., D.O. wrote an article to elucidate Osteopathy for the general public in an American encyclopedia. It takes scholarly wisdom to simplify great truths and bring them to the comprehension of ordinary minds. If writers for the medical profession want a lesson in the art of simplifying and popularizing therapeutic science, they should study this article on Osteopathy in the encyclopedia.

A brief history of Osteopathy is perhaps in place. The following summary is taken from leading Osteopathic journals. As to the personality and motives of its founders I know but little; of the motives of its leading promoters a candid public must be the judge. But judgment should be withheld until all the truth is known.

The principles of Osteopathy were discovered by Dr. Andrew T. Still in 1874. He was at that time a physician of the old school practicing in Kansas. His father, brothers and uncles were all medical practitioners. He was at one time scout surgeon under General Fremont. During the Civil War he was surgeon in the Union army in a volunteer corps. It was during the war that he began to lose faith in drugs, and to search for something natural in combating disease.

Then began a long struggle with poverty and abuse. He was obstructed by his profession and ridiculed by his friends. Fifteen years after the discovery of Osteopathy found Dr. Still located in the little town of Kirksville, Mo., where he had gradually attracted a following who had implicit faith in his power to heal by what to them seemed mysterious movements.

His fame spread beyond the town, and chronic sufferers began to turn toward Kirksville as a Mecca of healing. Others began to desire Still’s healing powers. In 1892 the American School of Osteopathy was founded, which from a small beginning has grown until the present buildings and equipment cost more than $100,000. Hundreds of students are graduated yearly from this school, and large, well-equipped schools have been founded in Des Moines, Philadelphia, Boston and California, with a number of schools of greater or less magnitude scattered in other parts of the country. More than four thousand Osteopaths were in the field in 1907, and this number is being augmented every year by a larger number of physicians than are graduated from Homeopathic colleges, according to Osteopathic reports.

About thirty-five States have given Osteopathy more or less favorable legal recognition.

The discussion of the subject of Osteopathy is of very grave importance. Important to practitioners of the old schools of medicine for reasons I shall give further on, and of vital importance to the thousands of men and women who have chosen Osteopathy as their life work. It is even of greater importance in another sense to the people who are called upon to decide which system is right, and which school they ought to rely upon when their lives are at stake.

I shall try to speak advisedly and conservatively, as I wish to do no one injustice. I should be sorry indeed to speak a word that might hinder the cause of truth and progress. I started out to tell of all that prevents the sway of truth and honesty in therapeutics. I should come far short of telling all if I omitted the inconsistencies of this “new science” of healing that dares to assume the responsibility for human life, and makes bold to charge that time-tried systems, with their tens of thousands of practitioners, are wrong, and that the right remedy, or the best remedy for disease has been unknown through all these years until the coming of Osteopathy. And further dares to make the still more serious charge that since the truth has been brought to light, the majority of medical men are so blinded by prejudice or ignorance that they will not see.

This is not the first time I have spoken about inconsistencies in the practice of Osteopathy. I saw so much of it in a leading Osteopathic college that when I had finished I could not conscientiously proclaim myself as an exponent of a “complete and well-rounded system of healing, adequate for every emergency,” as Osteopathy is heralded to be by the journals published for “Osteopathic physicians” to scatter broadcast among the people. I practiced Osteopathy for three years, but only as an Osteopathic specialist. I never during that time accepted responsibility for human life when I did not feel sure that I could do as much for the case as any other might do with other means or some other system.

Because I practiced as a specialist and would not claim that Osteopathy would cure everything that any other means might cure, I have never been called a good disciple of the new science by my brethren. I would not practice as a grafter, find bones dislocated and “subluxated,” and tell people that they must take two or three months’ treatment at twenty-five dollars per month, to have one or two “subluxations” corrected. In consequence I was never overwhelmed by the golden stream of prosperity the literature that made me a convert had assured me would be forthcoming to all “Osteopathic physicians” of even ordinary ability.

As I said, this is not the first time I have spoken of the inconsistencies of Osteopathy. While yet in active practice I became so disgusted with some of the shams and pretences that I wrote a long letter to the editor of an Osteopathic journal published for the good of the profession. This editor, a bright and capable man, wrote me a nice letter in reply, in which he agreed with me about quackery and incompetency in our profession. He did not publish the letter I wrote, or express his honest sentiments, as I had hoped he might. If what I wrote to that editor was the truth, as he acknowledged in private, it is time the public knew something of it. I believe, also, that many of the large number of Osteopaths who have been discouraged or disgusted, and quit the practice, will approve what I am writing. There is another class of Osteopathic practitioners who, I believe, will welcome the truth I have to tell. This consists of the large number of men and women who are practicing Osteopathy as standing for all that makes up rational physio-therapy.

Speaking of those who have quit the practice of Osteopathy, I will say that they are known by the Osteopathic faculties to be a large and growing number. Yet Osteopathic literature sent to prospective students tells of the small per cent. of those who take the course who fail. It may not be known how many fail, but it is known that many have quit.

A journey half across one of our Western States disclosed one Osteopath in the meat business, one in the real estate business, one clerking in a store, and two, a blind man and his wife, fairly prosperous Osteopathic physicians. This was along one short line of railroad, and there is no reason why it may not be taken as a sample of the percentage of those who have quit in the entire country.

I heard three years ago from a bright young man who graduated with honors, started out with luxurious office rooms in a flourishing city, and was pointed to as an example of the prosperity that comes to the Osteopath from the very start. When I heard from him last he was advance bill-poster for a cheap show. Another bright classmate was carrying a chain for surveyors in California.

I received an Osteopathic journal recently containing a list of names, about eight hundred of them, of “mossbacks,” as we were politely called. I say “we,” for my name was on the list. The journal said these were the names of Osteopaths whose addresses were lost and no communication could be had with them. They were wanted badly, it seemed. Just for what, aside from the annual fee to the American Osteopathic Association, was not clear.

I do know what the silence of a good many of them meant. They have quit, and do not care to read the abuse that some of the Osteopathic journals are continually heaping upon those who do not keep their names on the “Who’s Who in Osteopathy” list.

There is a large percentage of failures in other professions, and it is not strange that there should be some in Osteopathy. But when Osteopathic journals dwell upon the large chances of success and prosperity for those who choose Osteopathy as a profession, those who might become students should know the other side.