This impression was doubtless increased by the strongly practical turn of his mind, which is conspicuous in all his works. He was the reverse of a dreamer and had little patience with theorists. In his professional study he always aimed at bringing into the strongest light the utilitarian aspect of medicine, its ameliorating power on humanity, its real efficacy in preserving or restoring health and limiting human misery. On this his theory of therapeutics was based, and, inspired by the same opinions, he was one of the most earnest advocates of the day of popularizing medical science in all its branches among the masses. In this effort he was at times severely criticized by that class of physicians—and they are by no means extinct—who think that medicine should be wrapped in mystery, and that the people should be kept in ignorance of themselves and of their own physical frailties, to the utmost possible extent. With these learned obscurantists Dr. Napheys had no patience, and naturally found but slight favor. Fortunately, they were in the decided minority, and, we are happy to add, even that minority is daily decreasing.
Of the various learned societies to which he was attached may be mentioned the Philadelphia County Medical Society, the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, and the Gynecological Society of Boston. His election as Corresponding Member to the latter body (which is an association of scientific men who make an especial study of the hygiene and diseases of women) took place shortly after the first publication of the Physical Life of Woman, and was meant as a direct tribute of respect to him as the author of that work, thus obtaining for it the testimony of the highest body in that specialty then existing in our land.
The general plan on which Dr. Napheys prepared his sanitary writings was one eminently calculated to reconcile those who were most opposed to instructing the general public in such branches. While he confidently believed that vastly more harm than good is done by a prudish concealment of the physiology of sex and its relations to health, he also clearly recognized that such instruction should be imparted at the proper age and under certain limitations; while the general facts common to the species cannot be taught too generally, or made too familiar. Hence, he projected three books, one to be placed in the hands of young women, a second for youths, and a third for a general household book of reading and reference on medicine and hygiene. These three he completed in “The Physical Life of Woman,” “The Transmission of Life,” and the “Handbook of Popular Medicine.”
This plan, he believed, met all the objections to popular medical instruction, at least all well-grounded objections, while at the same time it did away with any necessity for concealing truths important to be known, for fear they should come to the knowledge of those for whom they were not designed, and on whose minds they might have a disturbing tendency.
There can be no doubt but that both the plan and its execution were successful. The many letters he received, filled with thanks from private parties who had gained inestimable knowledge from these works, made rich compensation for the occasional severe strictures he received from those wedded to ancient ways, and who often condemned without even reading his works.
The intelligent reading public, on whom, after all, the writer must depend for a verdict on his works, were unanimous in his favor. They bought them in quantities, and the writer of his life in the Transactions of the Pennsylvania State Medical Society, above quoted, who wrote in 1877, estimates that by that time over a quarter of a million copies had been printed and sold. Translations were made into the German, and several editions pirated and printed in Canada and England. In fact, the works may now be considered to rank as classics in the language, and many years must go by before another such series can be written, on topics of this nature, with equal delicacy of touch and accuracy of knowledge.