SIR, — 'The history of any medical discovery—invari - ably opposed furiously as
long as possible by the mass of the medical profession.' I am disturbed by Katharine Whitehorn's repetition of this old canard and correspondingly inclined to distrust the remainder of her article. As a practising general practitioner my own experience has been that the mass of the pro- fession are disposed to try out any medical discovery
as soon as possible and I have not seen any evidence of this furious opposition to medical progress.
Perhaps Miss Whitehorn would care to substantiate her statement by giving examples of this from the last twenty-five years?
H. A. F. MACKAY
.5 North Lodge. Chester-le-Street. Co. Durham
[Katharine Whitehorn writes: 'It is less than twenty-five years since Freud died : his work was the target of ferocious criticism from the medical profession throughout his career and his English followers in England have received little recognition for their work (what honours went to Ernest Jones? or Melanie Klein?). Such contemporary innovators as Selye in Canada and Simeons in Rome have been the target of steady denigration from doctors. Dick Read, whose main precepts are followed everywhere now, was forced to practise abroad because of medical oppOsition at home—like his great predecessor Semelweiss, who cured childbed fever in the last century, and as reward, was for- bidden to practise midwifery at all.'—Editor Spectator.]
Previous page
