associate in consultation, whose practice is based on an exclusive dogma, to the rejection of the accumulated experience of the profession, and of the aids actually furnished by anatomy, physiology, pathology, and organic chemistry."

We all know that the majority of sectarian physicians of the present day have a regular medical education, and avail themselves "of the accumulated experience of the profession, and of the aids actually furnished by anatomy, physiology, pathology, and organic chemistry." They buy the best medical books and medical journals, and in many cases the publication of the scientific work of regular physicians, is only possible by the patronage of irregulars, which is solicited by publishers' agents. But notwithstanding this the inference that consultations with any except members of the regular profession, are absolutely forbidden by both codes, has been universally made, and has operated as powerfully as though such restrictions were clearly specified.

The unique way in which the consultationclause of the American code has recently been interpreted, deserves notice. According to a distinguished authority, "the ground for declining professional fellowship is not a professed belief in the vagaries of Hahnemann or in any other dogmas. It is the adoption of the names

homœopathic, eclectic, botanic, etc., as a trademark; the formation of a sectarian school of practice, announced to the public as such, and the endeavor in divers ways to bring the regular medical profession into popular disrepute." It may thus be inferred that a sectarian physician is a fit associate in consultation, provided only he does not allow his belief and practice to be known by their proper names. We know it to be a fact that the taking down of the "trademark" has been going on rapidly in many cities in this State, and that at present only a small proportion of sectarian physicians retain it on their signs. It is doubtful whether the practitioners named are any longer "banded in order to impair the confidence of the public in the medical profession." From those with this animus, requests for consultation would never

come.

Very few would agree with the view of the writer just quoted, and we have therefore to consider the arguments for restriction of consultations, made by the old code advocates. The best reason that they have been able at any time to advance, is the one which asserts that the greater number of irregular physicians are dishonest men. Some, indeed, carry this conviction so far as to declare that all men

practising medicine outside of the regular ranks, without exception, are unworthy of ordinary respect or confidence, and that meeting them is endorsing a fraud. Do irregulars lie, steal, cheat? This is not distinctly said, but they are charged with professing to believe in a dogma in medicine, the limitations of which in practice they frequently transgress. If this is clandestinely done, it is dishonestly done; but opinions differ as to the character of the act, when the right to vary the practice is openly claimed. As to basing a belief or practice in medicine on a dogma, it is probable that this is often the result of a delusion. The world is full of delusions. The regular profession abounds with deluded men. That sectarian medicine is a monstrous delusion, I affirm, but that it is universally conceived in fraud and maintained as a fraud, cannot be proven.

It is said by the old code men, that irregulars if dishonest, should be denied recognition, and in the rare cases in which they are honest, recognition would be useless, as their views would be too widely opposed to those of the regular physician to expect any good to come from the consultation. To these assertions the answer may be made, that if a regular physician is asked to see a patient with a man known to be dis

honest, the circumstances of each case may safely govern the decision. Unfortunately, those with the widest experience in the consulting-room, know that dishonesty is not limited to irregulars. The regular physician frequently violates the letter or the spirit of the code. Often he is found misstating to friends the opinion of the consultant, in order to cover his own weak points, or to magnify his knowledge of the case, or to lessen the significance of the consulting physician's services. Many other instances of his insincerity might be adduced. Are consultations with such men refused? The regular physician in the country village occasionally owns or has an interest in the village drug store, where the nostrums which are most extensively advertised are kept and sold. Yet this village doctor is in good standing, and the city physician does not hesitate to consult with him. It is also well known that a physician may be notoriously intemperate or profane, still he is "regular," and these vices add to his popularity with some of his patrons. How shall these irregular regulars be dealt with in respect to professional consultations? Is there any other rule than that which leaves the propriety of a consultation to the individual judgment?

It may be incorrect to say that such men are

His

regular, and fit associates in consultation, because they are members of county societies, and have not been disciplined, and that certain other men, with perhaps more cultivation, refinement, and honesty, are not fit associates in consultation, because the latter entertain a delusion that declares itself in a sectarian name. To conclude that the honest irregular cannot be reached or benefited by a consultation may also be erroneous. honesty is in part implied, when he asks for aid. We will assume that he is so deluded as to be giving" moonshine" to his patient. If he really believes in moonshine, there are those who ask whether harm will certainly come to him, to you, and to the profession, if you answer his call for assistance and recommend to him to try the efficiency of, we will suppose, sunshine. You can confidently say that sunshine is one of the most potent influences we possess, and if you can once get it into the sick-room, the evidence of the valuable aid it renders may be apparent to the patient, the patient's friends, and their hitherto deluded doctor. Is any one injured by such a consultation as this? The inference is not justifiable, that consulting with an honest or dishonest irregular is consorting with him or approving of his principles or practice, any more than that inference would be justifiable in the case of the