"HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT"
WHAT WAS SAID AT A DUNEDIN INQUEST
BETSEY LAWSON'S FAITH IN DAVID WISHART
Coroner Bartholomew's Remarks
Wishart Assumed to Deal with Matters Somewhat Beyond him
From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep
Last Saturday, at Dunedin, an inquest was held by Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, Coroner, touching the death, of one Mrs. Betsey Lawson, who had died on the previous day under rather unusual circumstances. She had not been attended by any qualified medical man, but in her last illness had accepted the services of one David Wishart, who claimed to be
A CONSULTING HOMEOPATHIST. It appeared that when Mrs. Lawson finally collapsed, the relatives rang up Wishart, who declined to believe the news, and further declined to come, and, advised them to ring up Dr. Stephenson.
George Lawson, husband of deceased, said that his wife's age was 47, and her health had been very fair until a fortnight ago, when she contracted influenza. Mr. D. Wishart had attended his wife for minor complaints for some time, and Wishart came to see her after the Sunday on which she had taken to her bed. He had left some medicine, and continued to attend, until Thursday. On Tuesday they rang up Dr. Fitzgerald, but he was not able to come. Deceased had every confidence in Mr. Wishart and the latter said she was getting on well on the Thursday. At 6 a.m. on Friday witness thought his wife was sleeping. She was then very quiet, but there was a rattle in the throat from phlegm. When the daylight was let into the room he saw that she was sinking rapidly. By the time he had roused his daughter deceased lay quite still. They rang up Mr. Wishart and told him deceased was dead. Mr. Wishart would not believe it,
AND DECLINED TO COME, He advised them to ring up Dr. Stephenson. Up till Thursday night they had considered that there was little wrong with deceased. Mr. Wishart had attended her previously for indigestion, and for a slight lump on the breast, for which she had been taking medicine up to the time of her last illness. Witness had been under the impression that Mr. Wishart was a qualified man, otherwise he did not think he would have engaged him. Had he known the deceased's condition was serious he would have called in a doctor.
Lilian Irene Lawson, deceased's daughter, said she thought her mother had been recommended to go to Mr. Wishart by someone he had cured. She knew Mr. Wishart was not a doctor, but thought him qualified in his line. Deceased seemed to get much better after Mr Wishart had treated her. On Monday or Tuesday morning deceased asked her to ring up Mr. Wishart, which she did, Mr. Wishart arriving at 10.30. He took deceased's temperature, told them to keep her warm, and stated that he thought she had slight congestion. He left medicine, and instructions which were followed out. He came again next morning, altered the medicine and led witness to understand that deceased was a little better. During the day he used to ring up, and deceased had told witness that he had been very attentive. Mr. Wishart led witness to understand that the trouble was not serious, otherwise she would have obtained a trained nurse. He at no time sounded deceased. He rang up Thursday deceased had appeared to believe that she would be up in a few days. She said she was being well looked after by her daughter and Mr. Wishart.
David Wishart said he was
A CONSULTING HOMEOPATHIST who advised people who were ill and diseased. He did not put any limitations on the cases he treated. He had studied at the Missouri Homoeopathic College in St. Louis, USA but had no degree. His health had failed him. He had studied for twelve months, but had read for ten years before under the late Dr Wandess a medical man who had graduated and been converted to homoeopathy. He had treated deceased since September last for indigestion and for a swollen gland on the breast. When called in on Tuesday morning he found Mrs Lawson suffering from all the symptoms of congestion of the lungs. To relieve the congestion and pain he prescribed for the patient. By Wednesday morning the intense pain on the left side had been entirely relieved. As there was much rattling of mucus and bronchia he prescribed a different medicine and was informed over the telephone that it had been relieved. On Thursday morning the patient said she felt weak, but was steadily improving. He ascribed the weakness to a natural condition. The temperature had fallen, and sputum was being raised, and there was no indication to point to a sudden or fatal termination. Mrs. Lawson had remarked to him: "I shall be up to see you next week." He could not account for the collapse of the patient, except from heart failure. He had treated congestion of the lungs scores of times, and never once failed. It was his daughter who, answering Mrs Lawson over the the telephone, had said, "nonsense, child." Witness's reason for refusing to go was that he had advised them to send for Dr Stephenson. His reason for wishing to transfer the matter to Dr. Stephenson was that he
COULD NOT DO ANYTHING. He considered the condition of' the patient serious, but not alarming. In examining the patient he did not use a stethoscope. He put his ear to the chest. The falling of the temperature and the allaying of the pain might nave been due to another cause than improvement. The actual state of the lungs could be determined by other means than the stethoscope — by the ear. A gradually falling temperature day by day was a good indication. Under homoeopathy everything possible was done for the patient that could have been done. Whenever he found a case getting beyond his skill he advised that a doctor be called in.
To Sergeant McKeefrey: He knew perfectly well that Dr. Stephenson would not give a certificate.
Dr. Roberts said he examined the chest of deceased and found severe pleurisy of the left side, consolidation of the upper half of the left lung, constituting pneumonia and pericarditis of the membrane of the heart. The cause of death was heart, failure from toxaemia. The case was clearly one of pneumonia with pleurisy and pain: which latter disappeared after a time when the consolidation of the lungs was completed, but returning towards the end of the illness when the lung was recovering. Pericarditis was a danger always to be feared. Judging from the post-mortem appearance the condition of the deceased
WAS A VERY GRAVE ONE. Nothing had been said about the character of the pulse, which was very important. The comparatively low febrile temperature was an indication that the constitutional resistance was weak. The symptoms of bacterial poisoning were sometimes accompanied by an apparent state of well being which might deceive the inexperienced. The area of the infection should be gathered by stethoscopic examination of the chest, one of the chief values of the stethoscope being the exact location and extent of an internal lesion. This could be roughly determined by the ear. With the conditions present, which would have been revealed by the stethoscope, any case of the kind must have been regarded as highly dangerous. The cessation of pain was merely the sequence of the disease, and to imagine that it could be attributed to a drug was quite wrong.
David Wishart recalled said he had taken the pulse every morning, which was rather lower than might be expected in such a condition. He did not take the number of pulsations.
Dr. Roberts, continuing, said that he did not think that the patient's death had been accelerated by the treatment in any way. If a qualified medical man had been in attendance he thought the ultimate end would have been the same.
The Coroner said that deceased had not been attended by a medical man, but by Mr. Wishart, who claimed to be a homeopathist. It was evident that he had
NOT REALISED THE GRAVITY OF THE CASE when called in, but had thought the case was getting on nicely, and had so informed the daughter. The evidence of Dr. Roberts showed that if a stethoscopic examination of the chest had been made it would have disclosed the location and extent of the lesion, and the gravity of the case. It would be a comfort to the family to know that in Dr. Roberts's opinion the treatment had not affected the final result. It was unfortunate that the family had believed the patient was receiving the qualified medical treatment she should have had in her condition. It seemed to him that Mr. Wishart assumed to deal with matters somewhat beyond him. In the present case, however, the result would have been the same. The verdict returned was that death was due to cardiac failure, due to toxaemia. -NZ Truth, 25/5/1916.
A MAN FROM MISSOURI
DAVID WISHARTS DUBIOUS DEGREES
THE HISTORY OF A HOMOEOPATHIST
As Revealed when Under Cross-examination
A Sequel to a Dunedin Inquest
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
As reported in "Truth" at the time, an inquest which was held at Dunedin as the result of the death of a woman, Mrs. Lawson, elicited some rather strange evidence as to the qualification and abilities of a certain David Wishart, who had attended the lady in her last illness, and had prescribed for her. Mr. Wishart claimed he was a homeopathist, not a medical man, but last week, as a result of the inquest, the law required Mr. Wishart to explain his mysterious "degrees" of "C.H." and "B.T." that decorated his advts. in
THE "OTAGO DAII.Y TIMES" from time to time.
In short, David Wishart, "C.H." and "B.T.," was charged before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew with that he did in a public place, in connection with his calling, to wit, that of a consulting homoeopathic and biochemic therapeutist, use certain initials "C.M." and "B.T." likely to cause any person to believe contrary to the fact, that he held a degree, diploma, or certificate, granted or issued by any university or other institution, society or association or that he was a member, associate or fellow of any such university or other institution, society or association.
Mr John McGregor K.C., represented Wishart, who pleaded not guilty. Sub-inspector Broberg prosecuted.
Lilian Irene Lawson, 40 Pine Hill terrace, said she had known the defendant for three or four months. He was known prior to that to her mother, who died recently — on May 12. Deceased had been attended by Wishhart. He gave witness's mother some little white pills, and otherwise treated her as a medical man. He
CHARGED 15/- A VISIT. He visited her mother every day for three days. Before that, her mother attended him at his residence. Witness always paid Mr. Wishart. Her mother had not been attended by any proper medical man. Wishart told witness that her mother was doing quite well. When she told him that her mother was dead, he said "nonsense child." She asked him to come, but he instructed her to ring up Dr. Stephenson, as he (Wishart) could not give a certificate. Dr. Stephenson came but could not give a certificate. She accepted Wishart's services as she thought he was a competent man in his own line. She knew he was not a doctor, but she did not think he would charge 15/- a visit unless he had some qualifications.
WITNESS SAW HIS ADVERTISEMENT In the "Otago Daily Times" with the initials "C.H." and "B.T." and she concluded from that he had some diploma.
Mr. McGregor: You were aware that Mr. Wishart was a homeopathist? — Yes.
And your mother preferred the homeopathic system? — Yes.
She had no faith in doctors? — Perhaps not.
How did your mother come to consult him first? — Some lady recommended him to her.
And she never inquired whether he had a diploma or not, and did not care? — My mother would never have consulted him unless she considered him to be a qualified man.
Did she see his advertisement in the newspapers? — Yes, and she spoke about it.
You believe Mr. Wishart charged you rather high? — Rather high!
Yes, his charges were exorbitant: that's your real grievance? — No, certainly not.
Then what is your grievance? The lady merely surveyed the lawyer disdainfully.
Sub-Inspector Broberg: Since Mr. McGregor has pressed you to disclose your grievance, tell the court if you have a grievance against the accused? — Certainly I have; he deceived us.
Then what is your grievance; out with it? — I would not care to mention it.
Henry I. Harvey, of the "Otago Daily Times," stated that the advt in question appeared in the said paper.
Constable Kelly said he interviewed the defendant at his house, 3 Grant street, and asked him what the initials "C.H." and "B.T," after his name meant. Defendant replied that "C.H." meant "consulting homeopathist," and "B.T." "biochemic therapeutist." Witness asked him if he had
ANY DIPLOMAS OR CERTIFICATES entitling him to use the initials, and defendant replied that he did not. "You have nothing then to show," witness remarked to him, and defendant then said that he had two testimonials or documents, signed by W. L. Reid, M.D.. which showed that he (Wishart) attended the Missouri Homoeopathic College for six months. He handed the letters to witness.
David Wishart, the defendant, said he was a consulting homeopathist, and had been practising that branch of medicine for 21 years in Dunedin. The name of the college he had had attended in America was the Missouri Homeopathic College. It was a chartered Institution, and had the power of granting degrees. He attended for the purpose of taking out his degree, but his health failed him. There was a doctor in New Zealand possessing a degree from the same Institution. The institution was not in existence now. He (Defendant) had an extensive practise. He had known the late Mrs. Lawson from about last September. "Mrs. Lawson," said defendant. "was not such a believer in homeopathy, she believed more in herbalism. The reason that she came to him was that her herbalist, Benjamin Calverley, had died." Not only did she consult witness herself, but she brought, her married and single daughters, too. She had "no time" for a medical practitioner. Biochemic therapeutism was recognised as a special system — an important adjunct to homoeopathy. Witness had made a special study of it.
Sub-inspector Broberg: When did you go to this Missouri College? — In 1892.
How long did you stay there? — I was in St. Louis
SEVEN MONTHS ALTOGETHER. But I may say that prior to going there I had read for several years under the late Dr. Wanless.
That was in Dunedin? — Yes.
What was your occupation then? — Manager for C. Begg and Co.
You were just a band-master, were you not? — Yes.
You conducted the Caversham Band? — No, the old 4th Regiment Band from '83 to '90.
And for a few years later you conducted Begg's music line? — Yes.
Then you gave up that and tackled the easy proposition of homoeopathy? —Yes.
When you took up this easy business, what ago were you then? — 42.
Who is the New Zealand doctor who has the Missouri degree?— Dr. McKenzie, of Auckland. He had the American degrees, and they were recognised in New Zealand.
Had you succeeded in the Missouri College you would have secured your degree? — Had I succeeded! If I had persevered in my studies there I would have secured the degree of M.D., there is no such thing as doctor of homoeopathy. My health became impaired and that was the reason
I WENT NO FURTHER.
In America they will nearly do anything for you for money? — (Excitedly), Who told you that? Rubbish! (laughter).
They gave you those papers or letters? — Yes.
For how much? (Mr. Wishart here "let down" a copious draught of "Adam's ale" from a glass at his elbow).
Well, Mr. Wishart, was it not reasonable for Miss Lawson. or her mother, or anyone else who saw this advertisement in the "Otago Daily Times" — I will read it for you; here it is:
DAVID WISHART. C.H., and B.T.,
Specialist for Diseases of the Skin, 3 Grant-street (off High-street). Phone 769.
A Man In "khaki" wrote as follows; "Tell Mr. Wishart the pills he gave me act like magic, and cure everybody of colds, indigestion, etc."
That is your advertisement in the "Times." Mr. Wishart, and is it not quite reasonable that any ordinary person reading that would think you had passed an examination and were qualified to use those letters as degrees? — I cannot imagine so. The letters are not degrees and could never be interpreted as degrees. They are mere contractions. Besides, bear in mind, that people never came to me because I might have a diploma: they came because I had none, I am known as a consulting homeopathist.
Is there anything else in the advt, to indicate that you are a consulting homeopathist and biochemic therepeutist as you call yourself? — No, nothing else. The letters are plain enough.
I will read a few other of your advertisements that you issued from time to time:
January 6, 1914: There is no such thing as a specific for all sorts of skin diseases: the treatment of such cases needs to be conducted with a special reference to the cause.
October 2, 1913: To effect by means of constitutional remedies a really radical cure of any skin disease, can never be else than a life of physical gain to the patient.
July 1, 1913: Innumerable palliative methods are employed in the treatment of skin diseases, but the carefully selected constitutional remedy will do more to relieve the patient permanently than all other means combined.
February 3, 1916: The successful work I have accomplished in both acute and chronic cases of hydrocephalus impels me to issue this little notice to parents of patients.
Mr. McGregor: Hydrocephalus!
WATER ON THE BRAIN, Mr. Wishart, is it not? — Yes.
Where did you study that — up in the public library? — No! At the St. Louis College, Missouri.
All in the same six months? — Yes.
You were cramming! (Laughter). Who "ran" this Missouri institution? —The Deans, and Dr. Richardson, whose book on homoeopathy is known throughout the civilised world.
What were the fees? — £6 a month.
How many students attended the place — a dozen?— A dozen! 70, when I was there.
The doctors were all educated men, were they. I see a long list of M.D's. here? — They were gentlemen.
Really! Then just listen to these testimonials of yours from one of the gentlemen:
Homeopathic Medical College of Missouri (Chartered 1887). Corner Jefferson-ave., and Howard-st. W. P. Richardson, M.D., Dean. I L. C. McEllvee, M.D., Registrar.
Theren followed a long list of M.D.s. of the Faculty of Medicine.
St. Louis. Nov. 6, 1892. This is to certify that Mr. Wishart and Mr. Hall are capable and worthy gentlemen to intrust in cases of labor. I take great pleasure in recommending them to the favorable consideration In cases of maternity.
W. L. Reed. M.D. Professor of Materia Medica in Homeopathic Medical College, Missouri.
The second testimonial was on similar paper and similarly headed. St. Louis, February. 22, 1893. To whom it may concern: This is to certify that D. Wishart attended our school and has acquitted himself with honor to himself. He is a worthy gentleman, and will merit the confidence of any who he may associate with. — Yours. W. H. REED, M.D.
Was Dr. Reed sober when he wrote these testimonials? — You're raving! (Loud laughter).
He spells "gentlemen" as "gentlement," and he finished up by declaring himself a "prof-fessor." Was he really sober, Mr. Wishart? — Rubbish!
YOU'RE RAVING, MAN! And Mr Wishart had another "go" at the tumbler of "Adam's ale" at his elbow.
Mr. McGregor: Why did you not stay longer under such "gentlements"? — Have I not told you that my health broke down.
You never proffessed to be anything but a homeopathist? — I never did, I am not a doctor. My clients come to me because I am not a doctor.
The magistrate remarked that the points to be considered by him were: (1) Was the advertisement deliberately inserted. (2) and could the initials be likely to cause any person to believe that defendant held a diploma, through having a misleading effect? "I confess," said Mr. Bartholomew. "that I have not much doubt on the matter."
The Missouri medicine man was accordingly convicted and fined L10 plus a few shillings. -NZ Truth, 24/6/1916.
No comments:
Post a Comment