MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

From “Division of Fees” to “Down with Autocracy”

The “Medical Society of the United States” has for its “Honorary President” one A. H. Ohmann-Dumesnil, A.M., M.D., M.E., Sc.D., Ph.D., and for its “Secretary and Treasurer” one Emory Lanphear, M.D., C.M., Ph.D., LL.D. As originally planned, the “society” seems to have been based on the idea of organizing the “fee-splitters.” In May, 1916, the birth of the organization was announced to the medical profession through a letter signed Emory Lanphear, written on the stationery of the “Medical Society of the United States.” Even in its embryonic state the society had A. H. Ohmann-Dumesnil, A.M., M.D., M.E., for its president, and Emory Lanphear, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D., as its treasurer. The letter read in part:

“We—the majority of the medical profession—who believe in division of fees (i. e., that the surgeon should not ‘hog’ the whole of a patient’s money and leave nothing for the family doctor), are no longer welcome in the A. M. A. We are therefore organizing the Medical Society of the United States, which will not be conducted for the benefit of a few selfish egotists. We would like to have you with us.

“It costs only $1.00 to join. This covers dues for 1916, and includes expense for the beautiful certificate of membership (suitable for framing), which you will receive on admission. Fill enclosed blank and return to me with $1.00.”

But presumably the idea of organizing on a basis of “fee splitting” did not make a hit, so the lure was changed. Today physicians are approached with the plea that the “Medical Society of the United States” will make the medical world free for democracy; it is, we are assured, a “Society of Protest Against the Autocracy of the A. M. A.,” and a “Society of Medical Democracy.”

Membership costs “only $1.00 ... including the cost of a beautiful certificate of membership.” No penalties or punishments are involved for belonging to other societies, and:

“Joining our body need not affect your membership in any other society—even the A. M. A., if you wish to belong to it, and be ‘bossed’ by the ‘Simmons Gang’.”

The dollar for the “beautiful certificate” and membership is solicited by means of circular letters signed “Emory Lanphear,” coming from 3447 Pine St., St. Louis, Mo., the address of what has been variously called the “American Polyclinic,” the “American Hospital,” and later, the “German Hospital.” The “Surgeon-in-Charge” of the “German Hospital” is Emory Lanphear, M.D., C.M., Ph.D., LL.D. When running under the name of the “American Hospital,” Lanphear solicited operative work on a “division of fees” basis, which, the general practitioner was told, meant that “you are to have 40 per cent. of all fees received from your patients sent to our staff for operation or treatment.”

The “Medical Society of the United States,” was originally organized on a basis of “fee-splitting,” as is shown by the reduced facsimile of a letter sent broadcast in 1916, announcing the birth of the new “society.” Apparently, “fee-splitting” as a rallying point did not bring in the desired returns, so today the “Medical Society of the United States” is alleged to be a “Society of Protest Against the Autocracy of the A. M. A.”

With the change in name from “American Hospital,” to “German Hospital,” Lanphear appealed for a “portion of your operative work on a basis of pure reciprocity.” This “pure reciprocity” seems to have been a still more liberal distribution of the patient’s money, for from a 40 per cent. basis it was raised to an even fifty-fifty. Said Lanphear, in a letter sent out a few months ago:

“I wish also to inform you in spite of the despicable opposition of the hypocritical gang in charge of the A. M. A., and the no less contemptible action of the St. Louis Medical Society, I am going to remain in St. Louis and continue to do surgical work upon a ‘division of fee’ basis. To be more explicit, if you bring me a case for operation I shall allow you one half of the fee for your time, trouble, responsibility and help in the management of the case.”

Before leaving the interesting professional personality of Lanphear, and carefully avoiding any details of a personal nature, we may remind our readers that as long ago as 1908 Lanphear was the “Dean” of the “Hippocratean College of Medicine,” with A. H. Ohmann-Dumesnil, A.M., M.D., M.E., Sc.D., “Vice-Dean.” At that time Lanphear sent out letters to physicians proposing the organization of a “Post Graduate Faculty” on the following basis:

“Those who hold full professorships shall purchase stock in the corporation to the amount of $1,000.00; those who become lecturers or instructors shall pay in the sum of $500.00; those who are to be merely clinical assistants will buy ten shares of stock, $100.00.”

The “Hippocratean College” was a “sundown” affair; it never graduated a student, and expired in 1910.

Reduced facsimile of the letter-heads of an institution known variously as the “American Hospital” and the “German Hospital.” The change in name from “American” to “German” seems to have taken place early in 1915—when things German were more popular and profitable than they are today!

But to come back to the “Society of Medical Democracy”: The “Medical Society of the United States” seems to have been born in 1916. Its parents, so far as is apparent, seem to have been Lanphear and Ohmann-Dumesnil. The latter, it may be remembered, used to be the editor and proprietor of the St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, a publication so obviously venal, that its value to the nostrum makers, whose interests it espoused, must have been small. Advertising pages, “original articles” and “editorials”—all were used to puff nostrums of the crudest type. It was Ohmann-Dumesnil and his journal that came to the defense of the “patent medicine” interests when they were so hard hit by Mr. Adam’s “Great American Fraud” series. In commenting on this phase of “patent medicine” activities, Collier’s, in January, 1907, said:

“Headache powders came in for a considerable share of attention in the patent medicine articles. There was much talk of libels among the headache powder makers, but they decided upon the safer methods of hiring a meretricious medical publication, the St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, to print an article in which the Collier’s statements were branded as lies, and the Collier’s editors and writers as liars and libelers. This article the Proprietary Association of America circulated in pamphlet form. The journal which printed it died a natural death a few weeks later. Its editor, one A. H. Ohmann-Dumesnil, has just appeared in the public prints in an unsavory connection with a corrupt lobbying project in St. Louis.”

Some of the nostrums that Ohmann-Dumesnil has recommended are: “San­metto,” “Gono­san,” “Cac­tina Pillets,” “Pepto-Mangan,” “Satyria,” “Campho-Phenique,” “Tonga­line,” “Germi­letum,” “Narko­gen,” “Noso­phen,” “Mer­cauro,” “Arsen­auro,” and “Hydro­zone.” Many of these testimonials were, of course, used by the manufacturers in their advertising “literature.”

At the time that the Medical Society of the United States was being organized—in 1916—there was published what purported to be a preliminary program of its first meeting. The meeting was held in St. Louis, and the program, while containing the names of men with special fads or interests to exploit, also contained the names of some men of standing. It appeared, however, on investigation, that at least some of the latter had but a hazy conception of the use to which their names were being put, and protested vigorously on learning the facts, repudiating the organization.

Reduced facsimile of a letter sent out in 1912, soliciting the purchasing of stock in the “American Hospital” on a division of fee basis—forty-sixty!

Now, in 1918, another drive is on for membership; letters signed “Emory Lanphear” are being sent to various selected groups of physicians. For example, the Eclectics are being coaxed by a letter which commences:

“We want every reputable Eclectic practitioner in this country to join our society of protest against the iniquities of the A. M. A.”

An identical letter has been addressed to Homeo­paths, the words “Homeo­pathic practitioner” being substituted for “Eclectic practitioners.” In all of the letters the “beautiful certificate of membership” is emphasized, and the trivial cost—“only $1.00 a year”—is referred to, while the plea: “surely you are willing to help to that amount to ‘down’ the ‘gang’ in charge of the A. M. A.,” is featured. Another group of letters has gone out to the graduates of the Barnes Medical College. This commences:

“Most graduates of ‘Old Barnes’ have joined our society of protest against the iniquities of the A. M. A. Why should you also not come in? It costs only $1.00 to become a member, including the cost of a beautiful certificate of membership.”

Still another group appeal is based on sex; thus Lanphear:

“We want every reputable ‘lady physician’ in this country to join our society of protest against the iniquities of the A. M. A.”

And yet another:

“You formerly belonged to the Tri-State Medical Society, of which I was Treasurer for 20 years. It is now dead. I wish you would join our new society which has superseded Tri-State in this territory.”

With these various letters is enclosed a “preliminary program” of the 1918 meeting which is to be held October 8 and 9 in Chicago. As might be expected, many of the names on the program are characteristic of the organization and an interesting “story” might be made from the material in The Journal’s files on the individuals. Such names are of men, who, professionally speaking, range from faddists, who ride grotesque and bizarre medical hobbies, to those who with special interests to exploit and unable to use reputable medical organizations for that purpose, take refuge in such hybrid conglomerations as the Medical Society of the United States. Not that the program contains the names of crude quacks, or obvious medical swindlers. It is representative, rather, of that twilight zone of professionalism, the penumbra, in whose uncertain light it is difficult to distinguish between the unbalanced visionary, with a fad, and the more sinister near-quack, with a “scheme.”—(From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 5, 1918.)