British Homeopathy during two centuries by Peter Morrell

by Peter Morrell

   

The 1858 Medical Act, its origins, purpose and effects

     The Medical Act of 1858 derived from two
impulses: first, it was designed to end the wrangling primarily between Edinburgh, London
and Glasgow about medical qualifications and so to regulate much more tightly the medical
profession in the UK, by unifying medical education and the degrees awarded and to establish
a Register of medical practitioners. Second, it sought to discourage the unqualified and the
inappropriately qualified [often termed ‘quacks’] from practising medicine. In doing so
of course, it established medicine as a profession. In effect it increasingly meant that
no-one could practise medicine without accredited licences and that such licences were
granted only to those with the approved qualifications [see Pickstone, 1982, p.172].

     The other major provision of the Act was
the setting up of the General Medical Council: a body designed to oversee and regulate the
professional conduct of physicians and surgeons, and the annual publication of a Register of
approved practitioners who possessed suitable qualifications for them to be regarded [by the
public and by the profession] as genuine or ‘bona fide’ medical practitioners.

‘The establishment of a register of qualified practitioners is, of
course, an important process in the development of all modern professions.’ [Waddington,
1984, p.136]

     Practitioners who did not fit the
guidelines were barred from the Register, such as foreign graduates, and those who acted
unprofessionally could also be excluded or ‘struck off’ the Medical Register, temporarily or
permanently, as a punitive measure to deter professional misconduct, and unify professional
conduct [normative convergence].

     The Act also had the effect of regulating
the profession by reducing the numbers of unqualified ‘quacks’ who were practising medicine
at that time. Though precise figures are hard to establish with certainty, various estimates
give large numbers [thousands] of unqualified practitioners before the Act and declining
numbers afterwards. For example, in 1851 there were an estimated 6000 unlicensed medical
practitioners operating in the UK but only 5000 regular, or appropriately qualified,
doctors, apothecaries & surgeons [see Griggs, 1981, p.224].

‘…of the 10,220 practitioners listed in Churchill’s Medical Directory
of 1856, 1524 possessed only the diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons, and 879
possessed only the licentiateship of the Society of Apothecaries.’ [Holloway, 1964, p312]

     Many practitioners went abroad to qualify,
especially to the USA, where they qualified in Botanic or homeopathic medicine. In some
cases it appears, degrees could actually be bought from some of the Eclectic, Thomsonian and
homeopathic medical colleges in the USA without even attending a course [see, for example,
Shryock, 1936 and 1972; Warner, 1986; Rothstein, 1972; Gevitz, 1988; re unregulated practice
in Ohio see also Cooter, 1988, p.156].

     As a result of such grave doubts, most
foreign degrees were not recognised as valid medical qualifications in Britain, and
practitioners holding them were barred from the Medical Register in UK. They were
marginalised and stigmatised as unqualified ‘quacks’ [see also Rankin, 1988, pp.89-100,
145-151].

     Many of the medical practitioners who took
up homeopathy were often also involved in a broader, mid-19th century movement of reforms
that covered four main areas: social, medical, religious and political reforms.

     Medicine was also becoming an overcrowded
profession, much in need of control and restriction of entry:

     Yet for homeopaths the situation was
slightly more rosy, due mainly to the cunning guile of our Dr Quin:

‘Dr Quin was able to obtain an amendment to the Medical Registration
Bill; a clause was added enabling the Privy Council to withdraw the right to award degrees
from any university that tried to impose the type of medicine practised by its graduates’,
[Inglis, 1964, p80].