ORTHODOX MEDICINE
SIR,—In his interesting article on " Herbs and Herbalism " in last week's Spectator, Mr. Howard Bayles contrasts the teaching and prac- tice of herbalists with what he terms "orthodox medicine." To this term exception may be taken on the ground that no such thing exists. It is true that in a somewhat loose fashion the word " orthodoxy " is sometimes applied to that which is cusiomary or conventional, but its more exact and serious associations are with doctrines or practices defined by authority and claiming assent, under threat of penalty, as entirely outside question or debate. Now in medicine there is certainly no authority, whether personal or corporate, which is allowed to be competent for any such definitions or claims. On the contrary, every member of the profession is free to form his own opinions, to express and teach these opinions,• and, within the permission of the law, to put his convictions into action and practice. That medicine includes a body of established knowledge is of course true, but this knowledge rests on demonstrated facts sustained by accurate obser- vation and not on the affirmations of authority. Medicine includes also a number of doubtful, difficult and uncertain questions, and on these any practitioner is entitled to his own opinion or, more modestly perhaps, to the right to profess his ignorance. In either event he will neither be helped by a pretended infallible voice nor hindered by the terrors of a non-existent orthodoxy.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
