[To the Editor of the SexcrAxon.] Sin,—My friend Sir Herbert
Barker writes to me from Italy : " Dear Marston, I wrote to you, but I expect my letter has gone astray—to say that I hoped you would write to the Spectator supporting the case of Dr. Axham Will you please do so for my Sake as well as his ? We are fighting a battle against tremendous odds, Kindest salaams, Yours ever, Herbert Barker." I owe so much to Sir Herbert Barker that I would gladly do anything in my power for him and his friend Dr. Axham. I feel that, considering the objects for which it was established, the Medical Council had no option in the matter when they expelled Dr. Axham for doing some- thing which he, of course, well knew would entail his expulsion. But I feel also that Dr. Axham, having absolutely convinced himself of the splendid work Sir Herbert (then Mr.) Barker had done, and apparently alone could do, for many thousands of sufferers—I feel that Dr. Axham did a brave and fine thing in accepting ostracism in order to help the man who was doing such work.
Mr. Barker had been compelled to refuse to treat cases which he could successfully treat only with the help of an anaesthetic. We can all understand Sir Herbert's intense desire to see the stigma removed from the character of his now aged friend. I know many men in the medical profession and I believe there can be few in that profession who would feel it, not an act of justice, but of generosity, if the Medical Council removed their ban. As regards Sir Herbert Barker, I feel so strongly the inestimable value of what he has done that it is with dismay that I think of those thousands of sufferers who presently will be unable to avail themselves of his exceptional skill. He is mortal, though, as I told him, the Greeks would have deified him. When I said, " What are we to do when you retire from work ? " Sir Herbert told me that he had often been asked that question and that he thought it was possible that a hospital for manipulative surgery might be established, on the lines of his own work, and that he would lend it all the help he could. How all the thousands, some forty thousand I believe, of his patients, would rejoice at, and I am sure do all in their power to assist in, the establishment of such an Institution under his direction !
Why I feel, more deeply than I can express, what we should lose if we lose Sir Herbert Barker's surely unique healing power, may be indicated by a description of what he did in my case-- no doubt typical of thousands. Some years before the War I was getting off a motor bus in Oxford Street; in stepping off the bus,which had not quite stopped, a rather heavy hand- bag which I held in my left hand swung my body round while I was anly standing on my left leg. I felt and heard a crack and knew my knee joint was seriously injured. For over fifteen years I had the best advice obtainable in the medical profession, but with no permanent benefit. I had, of course, heard of Mr. Barker's wonderful cures, but I was not only prejudiced, but also,to be frank, afraid to risk going to one I had imagined to be a rough " make or break " unauthorized bone-setter. For a year or two my friend General Sir Des- mond O'Callaghan kept saying, " Why don't you go to Barker ? I feel certain he will do for you:what he did years ago for my knee and it has been all right ever since." At last I went ; I felt confidence in Mr. Barker directly I sawhim. He examined my knee, said that he could cure the trouble, and he did so— without an anaesthetic and with no more pain than I ex- perienced when the knee was injured. Some years later I injured my right knee even more seriously and my friend, Sir Herbert, put it right directly I went to him. Now, thanks to him, although over seventy, I can take up my salmon rod and even wade-if necessary.
I have Sir Edward Marshall Hall's permission to say that he very strongly shares the hope that an Institution for carrying on the manipulative surgical work of Sir Herbert Barker under his auspices, may be established for the benefit
Ma. Cnnurrusi BARMAN, of Queen Anne's Gate, S.W. writes :—" Your correspondents who write on the position of the osteopath are, of course, right in demanding that the; practice of osteopathy should be formally recognized by the G.M.C., but I am not Sure that either they or your readers! generally are entirely clear as to the reason why such recog- nition is so urgently required. The chief trouble is that blood-i less surgery, just like any other kind of surgery, cannot; usually be practised single-handed, and as often as not thei pain suffered by the patient is as great in the one as in the other, so that for most operations an assistant is required, and for many there must be an assistant specially qualified to administer an anaesthetic. Now it is ridiculous to believe that the attitude of the G.M.C. can possibly extirpate the practice of osteopathy in this country. The sole result of the G.M.C.'s ban is to deprive patients of the help of qualified assistants and anaesthetists. I remember myself witnessing a series of operations that were rendered harrowing in the extreme by this high-handed piece of trade-union vindictive- ness. You are doubtless aware, Sir, of the free clinic main- tained on one day a week by a well-known osteopath at one of the older City churches. I have seen the poor of the East End flock to this man, and I have seen him doubled up in combat with a refractive hip-joint, each muscle taut, the mind obviously under great intellectual and volitional strain, while! with the left hand he sprinkled the anaesthetic upon the patient's respirator. It was known beforehand that the patient was suffering from heart disease, and only three minutes earlier another patient had been led away from the operating table because his faulty knee was thought to be tubercular, a veritable death-trap to the manipulator."
Previous page
