Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 51-53. (Budapest, 1969)

TANULMÁNYOK - Antall József: A homeopátia és az orvosképzés Magyarországon (angol nyelven)

Cloaked under the cover of human rights and humanism one followed the other: M. Ürményi, G. Várady, V. Bogdán, L. Sálamon, E. Zsedényi, L. Kovách, L. Tisza, F. Podmaniczky, and P. Királyi. A member, who had emigrated to the United States after the defeat of the war of independence described the results of Hahnemann's school there in vivid colours and moving words. József Szabó, a physician, was the first to oppose them. His speech against homoeopathy was both well-judged and passionate. He emphasized that the House was not competent to decide over scientific debates. Gergely Patrubány, who later became municipal health officer, wittily commented on their curing methods. A certain number of the patients recover, he remarked, under any treatment. It happens even with the Samoyedic medicineman who dances around his patient. We do not, however, consider establishing a faculty on the Pest university for the teaching of Samoyedic methods. But in spite of these arguments the vast majority of the assembly voted for Szathmáry's motion. The decision created a big uproar among the physicians, especially on the faculty of medicine. In March the Budapest Medical Association came together and denounced the idea of the homoeopathical faculty. Frigyes Korányi compared it with setting up a chair in atheism on one of the theological faculties. The pharmaceutical associations of the countryside took a similar view. It was clear how little support homoeopathy had in professional circles. A report was prepared by Jenő Jendrassik on behalf of the National Health Council. They rejected the plan of the chair in the sharpest words and cited the situation of homoeopathy in the world, the obvious proofs of its decline. But it did not decline in Hungarian aristocratic circles, Countess Melanie Zichy announced the setting up of a homoeopathic hospital, so there was no doubt that the Upper House would also vote for the resolution. It was backed by Counts György Károlyi and György Apponyi. Eötvös once more expounded his views, in the resigned spirit of the acquiescence of the wise: "The future of homoeopathy as a science—if it is a science—will not rest with the decision of this House. My fullest conviction is that science needs no patronage. The so called omnipotence of the legislation comes to nothing before science. Science creates and produces itself without the help of the legislation and even against it. Like the correctness of the circulation of the blood, in fact any great discovery made by the scientists of any age was not assisted by any legislation, anywhere, so if homoeopathy really needs only some support to have a future, I don't predict a long future. Because science is such a power that not only does not need patronage but can even well endure persecution." Eötvös's speech did not make a great impression on the assembled peers. The resolution was passed and homoeopathy triumphed by the help of ignorance. Eötvös—unwillingly—started the official procedure to set up the homoeopathical department and fill its chair. But death spared him from effectuating the appointments. Homoeopathical therapy and treatment had two professors. Ferenc Hausmann (1811 — 1876) was appointed in 1872 and Tivadar Bakody (1825 — 1911), the son of the introducer, in 1874. The faculty of medicine itself received the resolution of the House with indignation and refused to receive the homoeopaths