The following are some of the lesser injuries, the non-recognition of which has frequently come under my notice at Whitworth. In the upper limb: fracture of the tip of the acromion; practical luxation of the acromio-clavicular and sterno-clavicular joints (often happening to men who carry weights on their shoulders); partial dislocation of the long head of the biceps, with over extension of the bicipital fascia (common in men who throw weights or use a shovel as malsters or navvies). Dislocation of the head of the radius forward on the condyle, which is very common in children, and has a marked tendency to cause stiff elbows; fracture of the tip of the internal condyle; overlooked Colles’ fracture; partial luxation of the head of the ulna (impeding supination of the hand, and having a tendency to gradually grow worse); severe sprain at the carpo-metacarpal joint of the thumb (very common in stone masons and caused by the ‘jar’ of heavy chisels).
In the lower limb: Fracture of the fibula, just above the malleolus and at its tip (these are fruitful sources of lameness, often overlooked, and, if of old standing, very troublesome to treat); partial rupture of the ligamentum patellæ at its insertion into the tubercle of the tibia, which is much more common than is ordinarily supposed; neglected over-stretching of the ligament of the plantar arch, and tearing of the plantar ligament at its insertion into the os-calcis; rupture of the penniform muscular attachments of the tendo Achillis and muscular hernia in the calf.
I trust I shall be forgiven if I have dwelt too much on the étourderie of some of us, but I am sure so-called trifling injuries deserve more attention at our hands, since living at the high pressure men do now-a-days, with every part of their bodies tested to its utmost capacity, the slightest impairment of the mechanism of a limb must be an incalculable source of personal annoyance, discomfort, or disability.
“When doctors disagree who shall decide?” The readers of this little manual will probably say as they read Mr. Dacre Fox’s paper, that it is alike a testimony and a vindication of the “Art of the Bone-setter.”
CHAPTER VIII.
WHAT BONE-SETTERS CURE.
“Man’s life, Sir, being so short, and then the way that leads unto the knowledge of ourselves, so long and tedious; each minute should be precious.”—Beaumont and Fletcher.
Throughout the many references to the Bone-setter and his art, which I have quoted in the foregoing pages, the Bone-setter is constantly misrepresented. He is described as a man of one idea, one formula, and one mode of operation. His ruling idea is said to be that a “bone is out” in all cases submitted to him. His formula to wrench the joint so as to break adhesions, and to replace the bones in their normal conditions. His mode of operation is said to be brute-force suddenly applied. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is an offhand generalization from a few cases out of thousands, and therefore misleading. If these statements were true there would be but few who would trust themselves and their painful limbs to the Bone-setter’s care lest his force should be applied in the wrong direction. A brother Bone-setter (Mr. J. M. Jackson, of Boston), has pointed out how irrational and absurd Mr. Hood’s statements on the one hand and admissions on the other necessarily are. Bonesetters, as a rule, are as regular and legitimate in their practice as any medical man can be, though they are not recognised by law. As Mr. Jackson truly says: “All kinds of fractures and dislocations, and other injuries are constantly being placed under their care and treatment, with the utmost confidence on the part of the patients and their friends; a confidence inspired by indisputable success on the part of a practitioner in a given locality and district, for a series of years—it may be for a lifetime.” Mr. Jackson, in his timely little pamphlet, very truly points out that “living reasons” for this confidence can be found in town and country where the practice has been carried on, or who have experienced the greatest benefits under the skilful treatment of the Bone-setter, even after the wisdom of the faculty had declared there was nothing wrong. That such men are ignorant of anatomy, and but seldom have dislocations under their care, and, that when they have, and succeed in replacing the joint, that it is done unconsciously, and what they do is the result of blind chance and ‘sudden movement’ without any knowledge of how, or why such results are brought about; the idea is ridiculous in the extreme; upon this hypothesis the practitioner would nearly approach the “supernatural!” I am glad to record this opinion, because it not only reflects the opinion of the public, but shows that the faculty have tried to prove too much. The position of the Bone-setter may be clearly defined, thus:—“We lay no claim to skill beyond what is the result of sound original teaching, thoughtful consideration, and common sense,” and we possess well-earned reputations won in proof that we have succeeded in our special practice.