declaration by Dr. Frederick Peterson in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association December 6, 1919. General intelligence, even great scholarship in all directions outside of medicine, is no criterion for judgment in the matter of means and methods for curing disease. Of Berkeley, one of the greatest minds of England, a philosopher, a scholar, it was said, "Ancient learning, exact science, polished society, modern literature, and the fine arts contributed to adorn and enrich the mind of this accomplished man. He was a distinguished bishop as well as an illustrious scholar. But he discovered an elixir of life made by mixing a gallon of water with a quart of tar, leaving it for 48 hours, and pouring off the clear water. * * * The same psychologic factors are at work in us as in the general public for the creation of faith in the new drug or in the new method. We do not know enough about it to be sufficiently critical. This ignorance of ours prepares the ground for the new belief, the new conviction. Its value is asserted by authority. And we are eager to believe in the new hope of help held out to us for the healing of the sick. Then, again, there are the marvelous mysteries behind all the new names-harmones, opsonins, endocrines, amboceptors, etc.-such a wide field for new facts, such a vast horizon for new theories. We can hardly be blamed for not being always able to get our bearings in these uncharted seas. In a lengthy article entitled "Our tendency to fads," appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 9, 1913, Dr. Joseph Ziesler, professor of dermatology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, says: (P. 379.) There was a time when ovaries were sacrificed to an extent amounting to a fad. The same criticism might perhaps without much injustice be made today as to appendectomy. A few in this audience may perhaps recollect that short-lived fad of nerve stretching in cases of tabes or may still have in mind the time when galvanocautery of the turbinated bodies in the nose was practiced for the relief of hay fever, chronic rhinitis, and almost any pathologic state in the nostrils with a great deal of vigor and very little rationality. The injections of paraffin for the relief of cosmetic defects may also be classed among the short-lived fads. The irreparable harm which this practice has often done has led to its utter abandonment except in rare instances. I may not be competent to speak about matters outside of our own special domain, but my impression is that the extent to which Freud's psychanalysis has been exploited in neurologic literature of late borders on faddism. (P. 380.) In former times I could make the almost daily observation that physicians in general and even specialists were very slow in adopting any form of treatment which required the regular use of a hypodermic syringe. That applied, of course, particularly to the treatment of syphilis. All this has changed wonderfully of late when almost anything is being treated by the injection of all sorts of serums and the so-called vaccines or bacterins. I feel perfectly incompetent to discuss that subject in general from its many points of view. I realize its great possibilities and its scientific fundaments, but when we see that vaccines are recommended and used for the treatment of vertigo, hay-fever, rheumatism and sciatica, of appendicitis and gall-stones, we are forced to regard such practices as fads. Not only in regard to therapeutics do we find a tendency to fads. We can observe a similar tendency in regard to broad pathologic and diagnostic questions. There was a period in dermatology when an attempt was made to explain most skin diseases of unknown etiology on the basis of trophoneurotic influences. That was at the time before bacteriology had become established in its varied etiologic relations. More recently the subject of anaphylaxis has been forced into the foreground and is being discussed to an extent and used to explain the cause of disease in a manner which classes it among the fads. Publications already issued which are of a questionable nature should serve as a warning against the Government taking sides in medical controversies. In this connection I wish to call your attention to a publication issued by the United States Public Health Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 17, 1918, "for use of the layman in order that he may know what measures he should take to protect himself from disease and what he should do in case of sudden illness, where it is difficult or impossible to secure the services of a physician." This book prescribes preparations containing dangerous habit-forming drugs, such as laudanum, paregoric, camphor and opium pills, Sun cholera mixture tablets, etc., for a number of common ailments. Another publication issued by the United States Public Health Service, entitled "To-day's world problem in disease prevention, has been sent out to the teachers and leaders of the people, particularly the clergymen. It discusses the subject of venereal diseases in a manner which many people would take exception to, and on page 111 discusses the subject of "Remediable obstacles and factors of error in marriage." I will not take time to read what it says but leave it to your judgment if you consider it the province of a Government Federal bureau to circulate publications which raise various questions in the minds of the readers as to the merits or demerits of such an institution as marriage. The bill now under consideration, S. 3259, is one out of a number of medical bills now pending providing for appropriations ranging all the way from $2,000,000 to $100,000,000. I understand the Federal Government is now facing a possible deficit of $3,000,000,000. The people are complaining of the heavy tax burdens which tend to keep up the high cost of living, and the necessity is quite generally recognized of curtailing expenditures rather than increasing them. Newspapers have recently called attention to difficulties in some branches of the Post Office, for example, to maintain their present employees on the wages the men are now receiving. Increased expenditures along that line may or may not be necessary. Heavy tax burdens are one of the factors which go to make up a high sickness and mortality rate. It is impossible under present conditions to avoid large expenditures for necessary Federal activities, but that is all the more reason why unnecessary expenditures for sectarian medical purposes should not be incurred. If I had time I would like to go into a discussion of the history of medicine from early times on up to the present. I would like to discuss the various methods and the apparent determination to compel medical treatment of every man, woman, and child that those in control desire to have treated. I would like to call attention to the failure of medical control in the Army and Navy, as shown in the recent war, to offer the protection that might be reasonably expected. The statement has been made that the Federal Government is spending practically nothing for health. As a matter of fact, according to a Government investigation made some years ago, it was found that the Federal Government is spending over $19,000,000—approximately $20,000,000 annually for health purposes. According to census figures, various cities are spending approximately $60,000,000 for sanitation and other health purposes, and the various States are spending at least $10,000,000, and allowing for other expenditures that are not included in that figure, the total expenditures by Government activities would easily make $100,000,000. Then, in addition, it is estimated by Mr. Meyer, of the Rockefeller Foundation, that State, county, and municipal hospitals and correctional and charitable institutions are valued at more than three-fourths of a billion dollars and cost some two hundred million dollars annually for maintenance. Reference has been made to the low infant mortality in New Zealand, and in that connection let me call your attention to the fact that New Zealand had a very low infant mortality before there was any organized effort along this line whatever. It was only about 8 per cent for children under 1 year of age. I also call your attention to the fact that the rural population which has been talked about so much this morning shows a much healthier condition than the cities. According to census figures for 1916 in the registration area, the death rate was 14 per thousand population. In the rural part of the registration States the death rate was 12.9. The cities in the registration area had a death rate of 15, and in the registration cities in nonregistration States the death rate was 15.3, which is a very much better showing for the rural population even though it does not have all these so-called advantages that are claimed for the cities. But there is another objection to this: You can see that great bodies of people represented here are favorable toward this. Perhaps certain large financial interests may be favorable toward the passage of this bill. But there is another factor to be taken into consideration that is even more important, and that is the love which parents have for their children and the love which people have for their fellow men. It took a long time before the people in this country really realized that liberty was threatened and joined the World War. It may take a long time before the people generally awaken to this danger of how medical control threatens the home and everybody. But I think of the statement of Patrick Henry, when he said: "Give me liberty, or give me death." And I think of another statement that has been quoted a great deal about the soldiers who are buried over in Europe: "If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow on Flanders Field." Senator RANSDELL. Mr. Anderson, do I understand you as being opposed to the expenditure of these large sums for health and sanitation by the different cities and States to which you allude? You said it would figure up about $100,000,000 a year. I gathered from your remarks that you were opposed to that expenditure by the States. and cities for purposes of sanitation and public health. Mr. ANDERSON. I am in favor of all real sanitary work. A great deal can be done toward removing the pollution of streams and in great sanitary engineering problems. The CHAIRMAN. Are you in favor of that work? Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, sure. The CHAIRMAN. That is sanitary work. Senator RANSDELL. Do you favor the establishment of hospitals and preventive measures to relieve suffering humanity? In other words, this $100,000,000 that you talked about, I want to know whether you favor the expenditure of that, or oppose it? Mr. ANDERSON. I call attention to a very dangerous tendency and that is that formerly the attention was centered principally on the environment and now the pendulum is swinging more Senator RANSDELL (interposing). Mr. Anderson, I can not discuss · with you for hours. I have asked you a plain question. You brought up this matter of expending $100,000,000 by the States and the communities in health measures. I simply want to know whether you intended to convey the idea to us that you are opposed 181999-20- -5 to that. I got the impression that you were opposed to it. Did I understand you incorrectly? Mr. ANDERSON. I am not opposed to all of it; I am opposed to part of it. Senator RANSDELL. Now, are you opposed to the Government of the United States maintaining a Bureau of Public Health? Mr. ANDERSON. There are certain features of public health work by the Bureau of Public Health that are very good, in my estimation. The original purpose of it was good. It is extending itself into a lot of things that I do not think are really problems within the proper sphere of such a bureau. Senator RANSDELL. You think it is being extended entirely too much, do you? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Senator RANSDELL. Do you think the Public Health Service has been doing good work when it practically eradicated yellow fever from this Nation, which it did several years ago? Is it justified in that sort of work? Mr. ANDERSON. Well, there is a great deal said in regard to eradicating yellow fever, and yet it is a question whether the results really show that it has done what has been claimed for it. Senator RANSDELL. We have not had any yellow fever for many years, not since 1905, and I can testify personally that the Public Health Service drove it out of my State of Louisiana in 1905. I was right in the midst of the fight myself. Mr. ANDERSON. Was not that largely purely through sanitary work? Senator RANSDELL. No, sir. It was educational work. It was making the people understand that yellow fever is caused purely and solely by the bite of the mosquito and by eradicating that mosquito. That was exactly what prevented it, and in my own State and in California they have driven out Asiatic cholera by killing literally hundreds of thousands of rodents of every kind. The fight was carried on in New Orleans last fall. We would have been in a sad fix down there but for the efforts of the Public Health Service. Mr. ANDERSON. The eradicating of rodents is really a sanitary measure. Senator RANSDELL. It is possibly sanitary, but it is conducted by the doctors and it is only skilled scientists who can investigate and examine these rodents. Every one that is caught is brought in and its blood is tested with the greatest care. It takes the most scientific work to determine which are infected and which are not. Of course, the mere killing of the rodent is sanitary work, but the scientific investigation of the blood of that rodent to determine whether it is infected or not you will admit, I take it, is very fine scientific work of the doctor and the scientist. Mr. ANDERSON. That is a very large question that a person really could not answer inside of one or two minutes. Too many other problems are involved besides rats and mosquitos. Dr. BOLT. There are a good many back here in the audience who would like to know what organization this gentleman represents, and personally I would like very much for him to name about 10 physicians who oppose the provisions of this bill. If he can name 10, I will withdraw my right to practice medicine. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. H. B. Anderson, the speaker, represents the American Medical Liberty League. 118194 Dr. BOLT. Will he name some of the gentlemen who are connected with that. Mr. ANDERSON. The president of the American Medical Liberty League is R. H. Minton, of Metuchen, N. J.; the secretary is Mrs. Lova C. Little, of Chicago; the vice presidents are Mrs. Jessica Henderson, of Boston; Mrs. Diana Belais, New York City, and Mr. Eli G. Jones, Buffalo, N. Y.; the treasurer is Dr. H. W. Pierson. I think he is a Homeopathic physician, although I can not say certainly. Senator RANSDELL. Where are the headquarters of the league? Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I could not say as to the exact number. Senator RANSDELL. Could you not even guess at the number of members, Mr. Anderson? Mr. ANDERSON. Probably at least a thousand members, but that is merely a guess. a guess. It may be ten thousand depending on whether the members of the branch organizations are members of the parent body or not. Senator RANSDELL. Is the membership limited to doctors of any one school of medicine, or have you all schools-homeopath, allopath, and all these other schools? Mr. ANDERSON. The membership is open to all. Senator RANSDELL. As a matter of fact, what is your membership composed of principally? Mr. ANDERSON. It is not an organization of schools, but rather an organization of citizens who are opposed to these things. There would naturally be persons belonging to the different schools who are members of it. But I could not say as to whether one school predominates or some other school. There are osteopaths in it, homeopathic physicians and several different classes. Senator RANSDELL. Just one other question, now: You quoted a good many statistics about rural and urban communities. Were your statistics for all the deaths in these different communities, cities and country districts, or were your statistics rather for maternal and infant deaths? Mr. ANDERSON. That referred to all deaths. Senator RANSDELL. Referred to all? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Senator RANSDELL. It would hardly be a fair index then, I take it. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The hour is up. Mrs. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, would you permit a proponent one question? The CHAIRMAN. In view of your splendid work on these matters, Mrs. Kelley, I could not refuse you a question. Mrs. KELLEY. I wonder whether possibly it would be convenient for this gentleman to file as a part of the record the names of the board of directors of his league and the executive personnel of his organization. Mr. ANDERSON. I will be very glad to do that. The CHAIRMAN. If he is willing to do that, I will have it incorporated in the record, without objection. (The list of officers and directors of the American Medical Liberty League, subsequently furnished by Mr. Anderson is here printed in full |