TO WHAT EXTENT ARE WE JUSTIFIED IN, OR REQUIRED TO TREAT PREG. NANT WOMEN FOR THE PREVENTION OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN AFTER

BIRTH?

BY C. S. MIDDLETON, M.D.

This subject, while almost wholly neglected, is nevertheless of the highest importance. But there are many obstacles in the way of a general adoption of such a practice. How, it may be asked, if such treatment be acknowledged as necessary in some instances, are we to secure such beneficial results to the coming generations; for, if we perform any service at all, it may be proven only in a negative manner. The general adoption of such measures can only be secured in a gradual manner by educating the people to the importance of such necessities, and as homoeopathy increases in her benign influence from year to year, so also will the people recognize the truth and wisdom of the course herein advocated.

Among the many objections which may be raised, both by the public in general and by the profession, one is that we are required to adopt a general or individual standard of health or disease. This can be easily enough done in some instances, but might be a very difficult matter in others. All parents would much rather consider their offspring healthy, than otherwise, and indeed it would be an arduous task in some cases to prove to the satisfaction of all, that a certain infant was actually a fit subject for medical treatment at a given time, or as a preventive of disease in the future.

If, then, such a difficulty exist after the birth of a child, how much more difficult will be the task to demonstrate the necessity for treating the expectant mother? Yet, who will disprove the

probability that nine-tenths-yes, a far greater proportion than this, of constitutional diseases might be prevented from appearing at all, or, in other instances, greatly checked by such ante-natal treatment? Among other disadvantages under which we labor, some are purely matters of courtesy and regard for the family, or, perhaps, for the enciente alone. It may often prove a delicate matter to insinuate that an unborn babe will probably be the subject of disease of some peculiar or special character, unless treated medicinally before birth. The effect upon the mind of the prospective maternus might not be of the most favorable nature. Again, when we know that through the misdeeds of the father, the strong probability is that the unborn babe will be afflicted with constitutional or inherited syphilis within three months after birth, it might be an exceedingly awkward proceeding to explain why such treatment was needed.

And yet, gentlemen, is it not a fact that such treatment should be insisted upon; indeed, are we not required by our holy calling to aid in every possible way the embryonic promise that its days on earth may be passed pleasantly and more healthfully, and that the probability of the child under treatment growing into maturity freed from the curse which threatened it from the first action of the primary cell, is a sufficiently strong reminder that unless we shall have performed our duty in this direction, we shall have fallen short of our great responsibility? If the syphilitic and scrofulous constitutions were thus carefully considered and treated, we should have less and less of hereditary diseases in this line, and a consequent improvement in the health of the world at large. There are other diseases which could be much curtailed in their baneful results if our all powerful "anti-psorics" were allowed to be called into requisition. Where tuberculosis is known to exist in a family-how few, alas! are really free from it in some form —and in skin diseases, which may really have their origin in some one of the diseases already mentioned, much good might be accomplished. Nearly twenty years of practice and observation of hereditary diseases have convinced me that we, as homoeopaths, are still below the standard which we should claim, in not making the ante-natal treatment of constitutional diseases already known to

1

exist either in the parents or the family, one of the strong points in our practice. Even the dominant school have declared it an advantage to treat the pregnant woman as a preventive against rickets, &c., where such defective nutrition is known to exist. How much more can homoeopathy promise, when we can carry a health giving influence into the being during the formation stage of its existence, and where the seeds of destruction are being planted within its organs! How potent becomes the old proverb, "an ounce of prevention," &c., when viewed from this standpoint.

But it is useless to speculate, action is what we need; and while it may be claimed by some that we might become mere empirics by such a course, and that we would not be prescribing according to homoeopathy in thus anticipating a diseased action, we are of the opinion that to homoeopathy belongs as much the effort to prevent disease as to cure it, for prophylaxis given under our system are surely entirely scientific.