Chapter IV: Introduction (1)

What Hippocrates was to the Allopath, what Hahnemann was to the Homeopath, Andrew Taylor Still is to the Osteopath, and it is safe to say that when another century shall have rolled away, his fame will be equal to that of either. That he is a maker of history, even the most skeptical will admit. His teachings are revolutionary but are borne out in fact, and on that as a foundation, is built the superstructure of the young therapeutic giant—Osteopathy.

It would be of great interest to trace the history of the first inception of the thought that drugs were not only unnecessary but harmful, then view the struggle to grasp something tangible to take their place, then see the development of the idea that the human body has within it all that is needed for its upbuilding and repair until he came to this fundamental: “The power of the artery must be absolute, universal and unobstructed or disease will result. The moment of its disturbance means the period when disease begins to sow the seeds of destruction in the human body; and in no case can it be done without a broken or suspended current of arterial blood,” capped by the epoch-making discovery of the cause for this interrupted flow of the blood stream—the theory of obstruction by anatomical displacement. It is the only theory of the etiology of disease that will stand the test of science and its acceptance and practice means a revolution in the field of therapeutics.

As it is, he sets the exact date, June 22, 1874, when the light dawned and he saw the outline of his great philosophy—Osteopathy. Then came the years of adversity and struggle. With the eye of a prophet he saw the future of that philosophy, and with the firmness of a Spartan has defended it since birth. It must be a separate, distinct system. Outside the fact that it was to heal the sick and was founded on a knowledge of anatomy and physiology it had nothing in common with existing schools, and if it were ever to grow it must be alone, for his brother practitioners would have none of it and if left to their tender mercies it would have “died a-borning.” Even had it been taken up the result would have been the same for they would never have fully developed it. And so through the lean, terrible years he struggled, buoyed by the faith of a discoverer, urged on by love of this child of his brain, fanatical in his determination to win. And win he did for it was vouchsafed to him in his vigorous old age to sit on his hearthstone and see the results of his work, his struggle and his faith. It is something to know that his fame has circled the earth, to be honored and sung by millions; a boon not accorded many a sage or philosopher. Not only has the public accepted it but the medical profession is making tardy but forced recognition of certain cardinal principles of osteopathy by using them, but, of course, without credit.

Osteopathy has been defined as “that science or system of healing which emphasizes, (a) the diagnosis of disease by physical methods with the view of discovering, not the symptoms but the cause of disease in connection with misplacements of tissue, obstruction of the fluids and interference with the forces of the organism; (b) the treatment of disease by scientific manipulations in connection with which the operating physician mechanically uses and applies the inherent resources of the organism to overcome disease and establish health, either by removing or correcting mechanical disorders and thus permitting nature to recuperate the diseased parts, or by producing and establishing antitoxic and antiseptic conditions to counteract toxic and septic conditions of the organism or its parts; (c) the application of mechanical and operative surgery in setting fractures or dislocated bones, repairing lacerations and removing abnormal tissue growths or tissue elements when these become dangerous to organic life.”[1] In a word, osteopathy is adjustment and the osteopath is an anatomical engineer who knows what is wrong and has the ability to correct it. Dr. Still changed diagnosis from guess work to fact and on it his fame may well stand, for when the cause of the disease was found, treatment was easy. He has ever emphasized the necessity of thorough examination and correct diagnosis. All treatment must be based on the definite, specific object to accomplish certain definite, specific things.

“Osteopathy would expound and apply the true philosophy of manipulation. While the hands are used, it is not this alone and chiefly that distinguishes its method of operation, but the idea and purpose that lie behind manipulation.”[2]

All manipulators are not osteopaths any more than all butchers are surgeons. The need for deep study of the subject is apparent from this characteristic statement of Dr. Still’s: “Osteopathy is a science; not what we know of it, but the subject we are working is deep as eternity. We know but little of it. I have worked and worried here in Kirksville for twenty-two long years, and I intend to study for twenty-three thousand years yet.”[3] This brings us to the point of the relations of osteopathy with other manipulative forms of treatment. They are not many, for Gerdine,[4] in closing a long article on the “Physiological Effects of Mechanical Therapeutics” says: “I have striven to show that in no way is Osteopathy similar to massage either in theory or practice if Osteopathy is conceived of, according to its founder, Dr. A. T. Still, as a system of healing in which a definite lesion in form of a bony displacement is the causative factor and a removal of the same, the curative factor in disease.”

The fact that use is made of the hands to the extent it is by both osteopaths and masseurs or Swedish movement operators gives rise to the mistaken idea of similarity in treatment.

“The essential distinction,” says G. D. Hulett, “between Osteopathy and all other systems of healing based on manipulation, clusters around the etiology of disease. While these other systems, as indicated at least by their practice, look at disease from a peripheral standpoint, osteopathy views it from a central standpoint.”[5]

Massage is a small branch of manipulative therapeutics, but conceding that it is perfect and scientific it can only resemble osteopathic treatment in one ramification of osteopathic practice, viz: relaxation of muscles.

The fact that massage is often employed by osteopaths in connection with their work shows the limitations of that form of treatment. Says McConnell[6]: “In the human body, as in any delicate, complicated mechanism, there is mechanism within mechanism; and, in order to obtain certain mechanical effects, many times there is required a series of complicated movements, all of which bear a ratio one to the other according to the energy utilized and the mechanical principle involved.” No other form of manual treatment takes this principle of mechanics into consideration. It is possible, as Gerdine points out, for an undeveloped osteopath to practice massage under another name. That the two should be confounded before the public is due to his ignorance and not from any fault of the system. Massage is a valuable aid in the treatment of disease but it is not Osteopathy.

“In the bright lexicon of osteopathy there is no such word as rub[7].”

Osteopathy in its relation with medicine has little in common. From the beginning, its founder realized their paths should run divergently, so the first step, its teaching, must be considered from a different viewpoint. To quote from an address by Teall[8]: “But to adequately teach osteopathy a vast amount of original work must be done. Anatomy is anatomy but there is a vast difference in its application. Physiology must be taught to mean something more than an interesting phenomenon. Pathology has an unfilled gap between cause and effect which must be bridged. The post-mortem has a great story to tell but an osteopath must tell it. A slide of degenerated tissue under the microscope is of interest, but why the degeneration? It is described at length by the authorities, but the reason for the causes and morbific changes are not carried out. Obstetrics along strictly natural and physiological lines insuring both mother and babe against injury; gynecology, minus the knife and plus common sense; all these, and more must be put into shape to teach the osteopathic student. The archives of osteopathy were empty ten years ago. There was no precedent to follow and the ideas in teaching which had prevailed for centuries dominated. All this is changed. The colleges teach the science along strictly osteopathic lines, making the application of the truths which have escaped the notice of centuries of investigation.”

All schools recognize the wonderful recuperative power of nature, as this from the introduction of a standard allopathic text book will show[9]: “There is no scientific dogma better established than this: that the living organism is in itself adequate to the cure of all its curable disorders. This natural law sustains the medical skeptic in his infidelity, enables the homeopath to report his sugar cures, and helps all physicians out of more close places than they are generally willing to acknowledge.” But at times, as all will agree, nature is not able to overcome its maladies and assistance is needed. Here, again, is a divergence as to the method and character of that assistance. There is no system so trivial or absurd which cannot point to its cures, but a school of medicine should have a settled system with established methods of procedure. This is not true of any school employing drugs as its principal therapy. In the President’s annual address at Cleveland he says[10]: “The observant reader of the progressive medical press is struck at once by the unsettled condition in the field of modern therapeutics. The trend is emphatically away from drugs. But, in the effort to get away from medicine, the medical investigator has wandered far afield, cutting loose from nature and resorting to the artificial.” It is the last paragraph of the extract quoted which particularly emphasizes the point of divergence, natural _versus_ unnatural methods. It must be understood at once that the osteopath admits the reality of drug action for “there is no doubt that the pharmacopeia records many drugs whose action is rapid and effective so far as securing activity or decrease of secretion is concerned, but the element of danger, i. e., their destructive power is great. Oftentimes their power does not stop at the point desired or limit its effect to the therapeutic action sought[11].” This point of unreliability of the drug is emphasized by the following from recognized medical authority[12]: “We give drugs for two purposes: (1) To restore health directly by removing the sum of the conditions which constitute disease. Here we act empirically with no definite knowledge—often indeed with little idea of the action of our drugs, but on the ground that in our hands or in the hands of others they have restored health in like cases. (2) To influence one or more of the several tissues and organs which are in an abnormal state so as to restore them to or toward the normal; with the hope that if we succeed in our purpose recovery will take place. The purpose we effect by means of the influence which the chemical properties or drugs exert on the structure and function of the several tissues and organs. Minute information, therefore, of the nature of drugs and their action is essential for their proper employment.” Osteopathy brings into action the latent or stagnant forces of nature by specific methods which are usually reliable. Naturally there being such a wide difference in theory of the cause of disease it would be also shown in diagnosis as well as treatment. The most striking points to the layman in medical procedure are: first, wide difference in the system of diagnosis and in its findings by physicians of the same school; second, the great variance in remedies employed by different physicians of the same school for the same disease.

Osteopathic diagnosis is so physical in its character, depending upon actual conditions found and not upon the subjective symptoms alone, that the same patient examined by a number of experienced osteopaths will be given the same diagnosis, and he will also be able to detect in each the same effort to correct in all their technique. All the methods of physical diagnosis are used plus the distinctive osteopathic procedure. Results wherever used bear out the effectiveness of the system.

The osteopath must and does consider the necessity of surgery, but his effort is always to prevent the operation if possible. There can be no doubt that surgery is carried to extremes and there is a strong sentiment growing that much of it is unnecessary. Says Homer Wakefield, M. D.[13]: “It is to the everlasting disgrace and mortification of the medical man that the wealthy classes who are continually under the observation and direction of eminent men, in dietary, and all life habits, in health as well as in sickness, are not only the very ones who develop appendicitis and most largely go to operation, but are almost exclusively those who attain to this distinction.” The operations of today are wonderful and the surgeon shows great skill and genius in their performance, but great as he is in these matters how infinitely greater is the man who can prevent them. The need of the osteopath today is to be trained to recognize surgical conditions and neither allow surgery unnecessarily nor make the more terrible error of not acting soon enough. Where surgery is a necessity there is always an etiological factor to be considered. The cause of the manifestation not always being removed what is to prevent a recurrence or serious sequela in spite of the operation? “The specialist ... if he has wit enough to read the lesson presented to him, that it is not sufficient to remove an ovarian tumor, e. g., and that if nothing is said at the same time or subsequently as to the causes which induced it, a positive damage may be done to the woman, who may, therefore, while considering herself cured, proceed to manufacture one on the other side, or may find herself in a few years suffering from cancer in the stump of the previous one[14].” And so the combination of osteopathy with surgery may be necessary that the cause shall be removed. Osteopathic treatment before operations in reducing congestions and inflammations, also in toning the nervous system, is particularly efficacious while the after treatment gives gratifying results. In fact, the two go hand in hand when conservatism rules both.

That diet should receive particular attention from the osteopath is not strange, for his veneration of nature peculiarly fits him to realize the necessity of correct feeding. Probably no subject is more discussed or presents a wider range of opinion than diet. There is overfeeding and underfeeding; long intervals and short between feedings. There is the no breakfast and no supper plan, mixed diet and the vegetarian, uncooked foods, and one exclusively of milk, anything you want so long as you are hungry but chew it well, etc., ad. lib. All are represented by osteopaths in their following as they are from other professions, but probably this would more nearly represent the views of them as a school. In health, first, most people eat too much and do not thoroughly masticate and insalivate. This applies to all stations of society. Second, meat forms too large an item in the daily dietary. Third, there is not enough variety and the ration is not well balanced as to elements. Fourth, not enough care is used in preparation of foods. In illness, first, the stopping, complete or partial, of food until the system can take care of it; second, the giving of easily digested foods. The man who avoids violent extremes in diet as well as in other habits of life will usually last longest. It is to be hoped that some rational system can be evolved on which all factions may agree, for the present confusion of authorities is bewildering. The osteopath gives attention to hygiene, sanitation, exercise, environment, mental attitude, etc., as they may affect the welfare of his patient.

Osteopathy can cure all curable diseases, for the same forces which will overcome one malady will overcome another when set in motion. Forces that produce a diseased condition will it normalized restore the established type.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Littlejohn, (J. M.)—Journal of the Science of Osteopathy.

[2] Encyclopedia Americana.

[3] Booth—History of Osteopathy.

[4] Journal of Osteopathy, May, 1905.

[5] Principles of Osteopathy, p. 190.

[6] Journal of the Science of Osteopathy, Dec. 15, 1900.

[7] Osteopathic Calendar, 1900.

[8] Reported, Portland, (Me.), Advertiser, Feb. 27, 1905.

[9] Potter’s Materia Medica.

[10] Teall—Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, Aug., 1903.

[11] Tasker—Principles of Osteopathy, p. 110.

[12] Allbutt’s System of Medicine.

[13] Cyclopædia of Practical Medicine, June, 1906.

[14] Rabagliati—Air, Food and Exercise, p. 129.

OSTEOPATHIC ETIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY

Osteopathic Etiology

Osteopathic etiology and pathology constitutes the most interesting chapter of osteopathic science. The primal divergence of the osteopathic schools from previous systems is to be found in the osteopathic interpretation of disease causes and processes, and not in osteopathic therapy as some may think. Osteopathy makes claim to an independent school because it possesses a distinct etiology, pathology, diagnosis and treatment. Thus osteopathic practice is not a mere method, but instead a system, a school, a science.

At no period of medical history have physicians of the older schools felt more keenly the futility of medical methods and the lack of an all-embracing principle of medicine than at the present. A recent writer[15] who claims to have discovered a principle that encompasses the entire field of medicine, says: “We found, we may say, that the backbone of medicine was the absent factor, and that if the patient labors of so many great minds had not proven as useful in the development of practical medicine as they should, it was because they lacked such a fundamental framework to afford a fixed _nidus_ for each discovery, wherein its true relation to other discoveries would at once become evident.”

Since the conception of osteopathy its fundamental framework has not changed one iota as to principle, although the application of the principle has been greatly elaborated. When Dr. Still proclaimed that “the rule of the artery is supreme” he gave utterance to a basic physiological truth. But when he demonstrated that osseous and other anatamo-mechanical lesions disturbed the artery and caused disease, and that readjustment of the anatomical cured the disorder, thus allowing the physiological to potentiate and revealing that the living body contains all the attributes of a vital and physical mechanism, did his teaching contain the germ of a comprehensive philosophy; this gave osteopathic science a “backbone” with a consequent fixed _nidus_ for all existing facts and future discoveries. And thus, it should always be emphasized that mechanical readjustment of the component parts of the vital body is the eternal keynote of the osteopathic school of healing.

=The Osteopathic Lesion.=—Broadly speaking a lesion is “any morbid alteration in a tissue whether attended by a recognizable structural change or not; but especially a change in which the continuity of some of the tissue elements is broken in upon.[16]” There are several kinds of lesions expressing the tissue involved, character of degeneration, locality of same, etc. But upon analyzing the medley of arbitrarily defined lesions the fact will be evident that much of medical etiology and pathology has not been logically and consistently sifted and arranged; and moreover, it will be found the =cause of causes= of many diseases is unknown.

Herein, arises the great significance of the osteopathic lesion, for the lesion alters the very governing and controlling tissues of the body, viz., the nervous tissue and the vascular channels. Hulett[17] defined the osteopathic lesion as “any structural perversion which by pressure produces or maintains functional disorder.” The constant maintenance of the structural perversion will, also, cause organic disease, although it is granted that functional disorder must necessarily result prior to any organic change.

The osteopathic conception of a lesion, functional and organic disorder caused by pressure from disturbed structures, does not bring us into an absolute new field. Medical literature of all ages contains references to diseases caused by pressure of tissues on nerves, blood vessels, or other channels. But the osteopathic idea is an absolutely new one in the application of this principle universally. It simplifies and makes uniform the arbitrariness of present semeiology.

Thus the osteopathic idea that many diseases originate, primarily, from anatomically malaligned, malpositioned, or malrelated tissues causing a blockage of vital processes, immediate or remote, is a theory inclusive of disturbances to all tissues. This principle is fundamental and is supported by the physiological truth that uninterrupted vital channels preserve health; moreover clinical and experimental data, as will be shown later, substantiate this fundamental. It at once places interpretation of a lesion in an entirely new light from preconceived concepts, and is analogous to and co-extensive with etiology and pathology.

=Etiological Factors.=—The osteopath believes in the potency of inherited and environmental influences. There can be no question that a few diseases and certain disease tendencies may be inherited, the principle feature, however, from the standpoint of heredity is, various organs and tissues have less vital resistance. These should not be confounded with congenital weaknesses and diathetic tendencies.

Environmental influences are very important factors. One’s surroundings and daily habits in the home, shop, or office count for much in the aggregate. Food, drink, air, rest, sleep, clothing, exercise, mental attitude, etc., are all factors in the sum total of health, and consequently ill health may be traceable to their abuse. In fact, all hygienic and sanitary measures are duly considered by the osteopath. Various abuses, over use, and disuse of the functions will certainly be followed by physiological discord.

The germ theory contains much truth, but in the very large percentage of cases where the micro-organism is a factor its significance is only of secondary consideration. Immunity and resistance comprise an important part of the health problem, of which the intact anatomical is of first consideration. Usually the micro-organism plays the role of an exciting and determining factor; before it can multiply and grow there must be a field that is first nutritionally disturbed. Nutrition of the tissue is the one great point always to be considered. The constitution of an individual is the pivot about which predisposing, environmental, and exciting factors of disease center. Health represents the integrity of the artery as well as a maintenance of that master tissue, the nervous system, and anything that produces or influences, directly or indirectly, a disturbance of physiological functioning borders on the pathological.

Hence the osteopath recognizes many of the common medical causes of disease, but reserves the privilege of rearranging their relative positions, for the osteopathic cause of disease greatly modifies their value.

=Osteopathic Etiology= distinctively emphasizes structural derangements and perversions. Of =first= importance, owing to static requirements, is the =osseous lesion=. This lesion is represented by any abnormal change of position or relation of the many bony constituents of the body. The framework of the body is subject to not only any and every physical violence of any mechanism, but moreover being the corporeal foundation of a vital mechanism is subject to both direct and indirect biochemic changes and influences.

Thus the osseous lesion is caused (a) by traumatism, e. g., strains, falls, blows, etc.; (b) indirectly by atmospheric changes, over and violent exercise, the slumped posture, debilitating habits, etc., through the media of muscle changes and imbalance; (c) by nutritional effects disturbing the elements of bony tissue; (d) by ligamentous change such as thickening of a capsular ligament; (e) by infections; (f) compensatorily and reflexly through the media of body distortions and muscular irritability or debility, e. g., an innominate lesion may be compensatory to a lumbar curvature, dietetic errors may cause dorsal muscular irritation and contraction produce a constant osseous lesion which in turn may result in chronic indigestion.

The pathological changes in the osseous lesion are commonly one of structural derangement, deviation or complete displacement. The vertebral segments are of primary consideration owing to their important relations to the spinal nerves, spinal cord centers and sympathetics; the ribs owing to the close sympathetic and spinal nervous relations; and then other osseous tissues, as the innominata, clavicles, etc., depending upon their importance to contiguous vessels, nerves and organs. It should always be remembered and emphasized that mechanical changes of the anatomical structures is the primary essential in osteopathic etiology; this is the one great inception of pathological variations from the distinctively osteopathic conception, which the osseous lesion typifies. Consequently the osseous lesion factor is actually a luxation (complete, or partial, even to a very slight degree), or malalignment of the bony constituents, which by virtue of their physical malposition impinge or irritate contiguous tissues. The essential test is the functional one, movement. The degree of involvement may be one of many gradations ranging from a slight malposition or impaction to a marked deviation or firm anchorage.

=Second= in importance from the static requirement of support is the =muscular lesion= though from the standpoints of movement and dynamics it is often of the first consideration etiologically. Many interosseous lesions are the result of spastic involvement of deep seated spinal muscles, of fibrotic changes and of tensions and weaknesses that either establish a rigidness of the segments, compromising nervous stimulus or vascular channel, or produce an imbalance of muscular tone and tension. In the latter instance some type of sidebending-rotation osseous lesion occurs, commonly anchored within the physiologic movements of the spine. The muscular lesion may be an actual dislocation of either muscle or tendon, but rarely. Commonly it is a contracted, or tensed, or contractured muscle. The muscle, also, may be diseased either from primary or secondary causes through nutritional and infectious sources and thus be an etiological feature.

The muscular lesion is caused, (a) by direct or indirect violence the same as the osseous lesion; (b) by atmospheric influences; (c) by slumped posture, debilitating habits and various errors of living; (d) infections; (e) by reflex irritations; (f) by compensatory changes; (g) by disease causing hypertrophy or atrophy; and, (h) secondary to osseous lesions, being the result of impingement to the muscles’ nervous control. The tensed or stretched muscle may result from a separation of the points of origin and insertion.

Herein the fundamental osteopathic concept is the resulting affection due to the physical encroachment, directly or indirectly, of the muscle tissue upon vascular channel or nerve fibre, or the effect upon the movement or alignment of the osseous tissue.

Muscular contractions, displacements, and tensions play a most important part in acute disorders, although muscular lesions that are secondary to other lesions are usually taken into account when treatment is given. Muscular lesions affect, (a) blood and lymph vessels; (b) nerve fibres. Muscular contractions, especially, impede mechanically the return of the venous blood to the heart. The lesions to the nerves may be manifested in innumerable ways, depending upon the location of the muscle and the function and distribution of the nerve affected.

Then there is the relaxed, overstretched, and atonied muscle. This condition results as a secondary effect to mechanical strains, these being so severe and constant as to cause direct stretching and possibly tearing of the muscle fibres. This should be distinguished from the exhausted or debilitated muscle, e. g., as found in neurasthenia and anemia.

Diagnostically there are, (a) contractions of more or less area, due to atmospherical changes; (b) the deeply seated contractions involving a very small area, caused by vertebral and rib lesions; (c) contractions due to reflex disturbances; (d) contractions caused by postural effects and deformities; (e) contractions from spasms of the blood vessels as a result of nervous irritations; (f) contractions due to toxicity of the blood. All of these characteristic muscular lesions give a direct hint as to both etiology and prognosis.

=Third=, the =ligamentous lesion=, as a lesion _per se_, is usually of secondary importance to the osseous lesion. In chronic cases affections of the capsular ligament and muscular fibrosis commonly maintain malalignment or rigidness. There are two features that should be noted in particular when considering this lesion; first, thickenings and adhesions; and, second, relaxations.

The tone and integrity of the ligaments cannot but be of vital concern to the stability, suppleness, and adaptability of the bony framework in all physical movements. No matter how slight the osseous lesion may be the ligament must of necessity be involved. The osseous derangements are either a source of irritation to the ligamentous tissue, resulting in congestion and inflammation and hence thickening and adhesions, or else the ligaments are so strained and tensed that in time atony may occur. Probably, in a fair percentage of atonied cases the first disturbance to the ligament is one of irritation and congestion, and from long continued involvement irritation is supplanted by debility.

Consequently the primary consideration of the ligamentous lesion from the etiological standpoint is the character of the tissue (ligament) changes. This, also, gives us a direct hint that is of the utmost value in prognosis. The independent displacement of a ligament is rare, thus ligamentous lesions from the viewpoint of purely physical displacements are secondary to if not an actual part of the osseous lesion. Ligaments, when displaced or tensed, readily impinge or irritate contiguous tissues, but the original cause of the structural perversion is commonly either the osseous or muscular lesion. Hence, whatever factors enter into the production of these lesions will at least indirectly produce the ligamentous lesion.

=Fourth=, the =visceral lesion= is frequently overlooked as being of much moment as an osteopathic lesion. Visceral displacements acting as a source of functional and organic annoyance on the physical plane (structural perversion which produces and maintains pressure) alone are not in the least uncommon.

Any or all of the abdominal viscera, or even the organs of the thorax, may be displaced (physically) pathologically. Actual displacement of the viscus is a prolific source of distinct disorders and many obscure symptoms. True it is the organs are most frequently displaced from indirect causes, but nevertheless the actual physical malposition is in turn a primary cause of still another train of symptoms and diseases.

Visceral lesions are caused by, (a) vertebral lesions; (b) postural defects; (c) direct violence; (d) nutritional disorders; (e) childbirth; (f) unhygienic measures (tight lacing, heavy skirts, etc.); (g) congenital weakness.

From the displaced heart due to valvular and debilitating influences to the displaced liver, the stomach, the kidneys, the intestines, the ovaries, and the uterus, may arise a source of direct or indirect irritations, a train of apparent or masked symptoms, or a group of nutritional disturbances that include an extremely important chapter in etiology. Moreover not only may one organ alone be involved but several may be displaced or prolapsed as a whole as in splanchnoptosis; and even these in turn may be the direct cause of further organic displacements as the abdominal viscera prolapsing upon the pelvic organs. Here is a very fruitful field for the diagnostician, for to separate cause from effect requires keen perception, an acute sense of touch, and above all, most careful weighing of all the factors that enter into the maze.

=Fifth=, the =composite lesion= is not always recognized as an extremely important osteopathic factor. By composite lesion is meant a structural lesion that primarily includes the osseous, muscular, and ligamentous tissues as a whole. This may be termed a lesion _en bloc_ or _en masse_.

Composite lesions are of exceedingly frequent occurrence. Indeed, many composite lesions are overlooked and instead of treating the _en bloc_ disturbance as a consistent whole the component factors are treated separately with no concern or attention to the whole.

Postural defects are excellent types of the composite lesion. The various curvatures, the tilted pelvis, etc., are representative of the composite lesion. Etiologically, pathologically, diagnostically, and therapeutically the contour of the spine and ribs, the relation of the innominata to the sacrum and spine, and the symmetry of the body generally should be recognized and appreciated. The relation of the part to the whole and of the whole to the part are of vital etiological concern. An incipient curvature may be easily overlooked, a pendulous abdomen neglected, and a slipped innominatum passed unnoticed wherein as a result the entire vertebral column is malaligned in relation to the physiological curves or to the perpendicular line of gravity.

Frequently attempts are made to correct individual lesions when attention should be directed to the composite lesion and _vice versa_, e. g., a displaced rib is usually dependent upon a corresponding vertebral lesion, and thus the transverse plane or section of the body should be considered as a whole. A single lesion may be dependent upon a composite lesion or a composite lesion dependent upon one or more single lesions. A slipped innominatum or a disordered hip joint may bring about a strain to a greater or less section of the spinal column, or a twisted vertebra may cause a curvature, whereas on the other hand postural defects may cause a strain at its maximum focal point resulting in over-stretching and relaxing of ligaments so that an osseous lesion results, or a spinal curvature cause an innominatum displacement. Thus there is a constant establishing of equilibrium, physically and physiologically, through the medium of compensation, but at some phase of the change there are apt to be pathological phenomena resulting, and very frequently physiological harmony is not reestablished but instead irritation, debility and other disease symptoms are constant effects until relieved.

Consequently osteopathic etiology is many sided and complicated. To know whether an osseous, ligamentous, muscular, visceral, or composite lesion is primary or secondary, compensatory, reflex, predisposing, or exciting, requires a command of theoretical knowledge backed by much actual clinical experience.

In noting the above distinctive osteopathic etiologic features the student should not lose sight of the constitutional status of the patient which may be modified by inherited, congenital, diathetic, and environmental influences, all of which go to make up the predisposition of the individual and have an important relation to osteopathic factors. Then it should be recalled that disease processes may be of insidious progress, and the products and effects of pathologic changes accumulative.

Osteopathic Pathology

In the etiologic study the osteopathic characteristics have been designated structural maladjustment, although at the same time not losing sight of the angle that the body is not only a physical mechanism but also a vital organism. Structural perversions characterize the osteopathic distinction when dealing with the physical body, and remembering the vital or biochemic mechanism, mental attitude, diet, hygiene, etc., are not forgotten. To retain or attain health, thorough appreciation of both the physical and vital mechanisms should be kept in view, for there is both an independent and dependent interaction on the part of each. The living body being an entity premises a system of therapeutics both physical and vital, that acts in direct accord and harmony with physical laws and physiological functioning.

Osteopathic pathology deals with the distinctive osteopathic lesion as a factor in production and maintenance of disease. Then the province of pathology is, first, to determine whether the lesion is in reality an etiologic factor; second, the immediate character of the lesion disturbance; and, third, how organic life becomes involved.

Inspection, palpation, clinical results, dissection and laboratory experimentation include the methods employed to prove that the lesion is of practical consequence. That the lesion is an etiological factor can be known only through clinical and experimental proof; the immediate character of the lesion disturbance can be determined by dissection; and how organic life becomes involved requires the summation of histological, physiological and pathological data.

The following outline assumes that the reader is familiar with anatomy, physiology and pathology. Osteopathic pathology does not add to medical pathology an absolutely new pathology in all of the present known numerous details, but instead interprets much of clinical pathology anew, and furthermore it presents absolutely new data that is exclusive, but germane to the present general medical and surgical fields.

Nervous tissue and arterial blood are the master tissues, the controlling and governing factors in health, and disturbances of these tissues are necessarily the cause of ill health. The rule of the artery and the control of the nerve must continue uninterruptedly in order that physiological functioning remains intact. The body should be looked upon as a being complete, no more or less, each tissue and organ essential to the whole and the organism as a whole essential to every part. This is fundamental and germane to a living structure, and hence disturbance to the governing and controlling tissues, the nerves and vascular channels, must necessarily cause a break in the concatenation and disease must logically follow.

Thus in the osteopathic pathology we look to those influences that primarily disturb the nerve or artery, study the disease process or extension from inception to effect and from primary lesion to morbid results, and note action and interaction of tissue upon organ and organ upon organ.

That all parts of the body are in intimate and dependent relations each with the other through the media of the nervous and endocrine systems is a well known fact based upon histological and physiological grounds. The neurone being the physiological unit implies that any disturbance to the cell quickly disturbs any or all of its processes. It may be said that “nervous tissue is dependent for its integrity upon two things, blood supply and trophic influences. The nerve cell is solely dependent on a proper supply of blood, and dies when this is withdrawn. But the nerve fiber is more dependent on the trophic influence of the cell of which it is a prolongation. It dies when cut off from the cell but it can get along for a time with but little direct blood supply. On the other hand, if the nerve fiber is injured it reacts on the cell, leading to a partial but curable degeneration of the cell body.”[18] Here is the immediate pathologic key to many diseases. Whatever cuts off or obstructs the artery leading to the cell is a primary etiologic factor; this then leads to degeneration of protoplasmic processes and axone. It should be carefully noted that if the obstructed blood vessel is one to the nerve fiber only the resultant partial injury to the cell is curable.

“When an axone degenerates the retrogressive process involves not only the main axone, but also its terminals, together with the collaterals belonging to it with their terminals.”[19] This is an exceedingly important link in the explanation of osteopathic pathology, that distant organs may be affected by the osteopathic lesion. Moreover, “degenerations of a secondary character may occur in those systems of neurones which are more or less dependent upon the peripheral sensory neurone system for their impulses.”[20] This is equally true with the central motor neurone, or any neurone. It shows how far-reaching a degenerative process and its effects may be. It further makes clear that nerve intactness is directly and absolutely dependent upon a normal circulation, and that it is self-evident any blockage either to blood vessels or to neurones will vitally affect those tissues that govern and control the life processes of the body. The integrative action of the nervous system is one of the outstanding facts of physiology.

The above is presented so the student may see how osteopathic spinal lesions, if deeply seated and effective enough, can involve remote tissues and organs. No one will doubt that fractures and complete dislocations of the spinal column will seriously affect visceral life, or a prolapsed kidney will be a cause of nutritive disturbance, or a displaced uterus the cause of ovarian congestion, or a dislocated hip the cause of atrophy of the leg muscles, but it has remained for the osteopath to offer proof that slight misplacements of the vertebræ or ribs, incipient curvatures, postural defects, slight deformities, and unsymmetrical bodies are of sufficient etiological importance on the physical plane to affect neurone integrity and obstruct artery courses, and thus organic life.

The question at once arises, what is the immediate or direct effect upon blood vessel or nerve of the osseous, ligamentous, muscular, visceral or composite lesion? The osseous lesion will be taken as a type. The direct effect is usually one of hyperemia or ischemia, generally the former, for as physiologists and clinicians observe irritation commonly precedes debility. In the vertebral and rib lesions there may be direct pressure upon the spinal nerve at its spinal foramen exit or on the sympathetic chain directly contiguous to the heads of the ribs. This causes congestion, inflammation, ecchymosis, and degeneration of the nerve fiber, followed by macroscopic and microscopic changes as connective tissue proliferations, arterial scleroses, etc. Or, as seems probable in experimental work, the inception of the pathology may be frequently the result of blockage to nervous stimuli, which when maintained affects the efferent vasomotor, secretory, trophic and other fibers so that circulation and nutrition are definitely involved.

Thus the cells so sensitive to altered vascular changes are directly and remotely affected, and disease characteristics dependent upon structure and function of tissue, and degree of irritant are evident. This can vary, in degree only, with the muscular lesion that involves collateral spinal cord circulation, the visceral lesion that irritates sympathetic life, or the composite lesion that deforms or perverts structure en masse.

But is the physical noxa as potent an etiologic factor as the chemical or bacteriologic? Adami[21] informs us whether an irritant is physical, bacterial or chemical, no satisfactory distinction can be founded on the duration of the irritation; that a local irritation of the nervous system may lead apart from “direct reflex action, to changes of nervous origin, in the region of the injury and in the reflexes affecting associated regions, the higher centers; and through them the system at large, may become affected by paths that it is not always easy to trace.” Again he says that “centrifugal impulses alone, apart from any local injury, may originate a succession of phenomena of inflammation in a part.” And “in all probability a nervous and central origin must be ascribed to some, at least, of the sympathetic inflammations seen to occur in areas supplied by the other branches of a nerve supplying a part primarily inflamed; and again in areas supplied from the same region of the brain or cord as the inflamed organ.” Other inflammatory changes, of course, may occur independently of centrifugal nervous influences, and the vessels react independently of central influences.

This, then, presents a situation postulated thus:

1. The body follows definite structural relations and is influenced by mechanical arrangements in its morphology.

2. The integrity of tissue depends upon structural freedom of nutritive courses.

3. The above predicates a structural etiology as exact and precise as structural relations are important to nutrition.

What proof, then, of the foregoing have we to offer?

First, the =clinical proof=. Clinical results have been obtained in tens of thousands of cases that include disease of various types and lesions, and of all sections and organs of the body. The art of osteopathy has been perfected in many of its details, based upon actual experience and splendid results. The cure of the patient is paramount to all other consideration, and whereas the osteopathic school has been shown a superior system it logically follows on _a priori_ grounds that relief and cure of suffering is of the first and final importance.[22]

Were it not for clinical results no new system of therapeutics could withstand criticism and calumny and finally triumph and be publicly, legislatively, and scientifically recognized.

Second, the =autopsy proof=. Many dissections have been made and autopsies held with the view of discovering the character and the potency of the osteopathic lesion. This very important work has borne out the osteopathic theory of disease. Vertebral and rib displacements have been noted, corresponding ligamentous tissues thickened, associated nerve tracts and vascular channels disturbed, and finally the related organ found diseased.[23]

Third, the =experimental proof=. Experimental proof appeals, logically, to the scientific mind. This proof[24] is being gradually developed.

Experimental investigation has been successfully carried out upon numerous animals. The experiments conclusively prove that not only spinal inhibitory and stimulatory manipulations (mechanical) are productive of immediate physiological changes in the viscera, but that the structural anatomical lesion or noxa is an important factor in the etiologic field. Pathological changes in several organs directly follow the artificially produced vertebral and rib lesions, showing beyond doubt the reality and effectiveness of the osteopathic lesion. This emphasizes the point that centrifugal impulses originate an inflammation in a previously healthy and uninjured tissue or viscus. And as “inflammatory phenomena may be sympathetically developed in regions innervated from the same area in the brain or spinal cord” it remains to prove the actuality of vertebral and rib lesions, i. e., structural perversions really affect contiguous nerve courses and vascular channels; and this has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments and at the autopsy. Consequently the vertebral, rib, or other lesion may be an important etiologic factor either to the nerve strand from cord or brain to viscus or from viscus to cord or brain.

Dr. Still says in his Autobiography that “all nerves depend wholly on the arterial system for their qualities, such as sensation, nutrition and motion, even though by the law of reciprocity they furnish force, nutrition and sensation to the artery itself.” It matters little in this outline whether obstruction to nervous integrity is by way of an impinged artery or by direct pressure, or both, or otherwise, for the primary consideration is the noting that the osteopathic lesion is a real and potent factor of disease. Sajous[25] informs us that “a neurone is directly connected with the circulation (via neuroglia-fibril) by one or more of its dendrites, which serve as channels for blood plasma,” that a neurone receives its nutrition directly from the general circulation, and that from the axone the blood passes into a lymph space connected with a vein. Thus in reality a part of the circulatory system is that of the entire cerebrospinal system.

The student is referred to the various publications of the Research Institute and Deason’s Physiology for experimental data confirming the validity of the osteopathic theory, although it should be emphasized that clinical evidence is quite conclusive. Malalignment injuries of the vertebral articulations, for example, ranging from imbalance of muscular tension to infections, is certain to result in some type of rotation and sidebending of the segments to an extent that apposition is compromised and abnormal anchorage supervenes. There are many factors of the pathology: muscular tension and fibrosis; damaged ligaments, particularly the capsular; interference of nervous stimuli, blockage of impulse directly and reflexly as shown by pathologic involvement in cord centers and sympathetic ganglia, and in certain cases direct obstruction of nerve fibers as revealed by Wallerian degeneration; involvement of circulation as shown by damage to blood-vessels, local edema and local acidosis, and effect upon local tissue respiration and drainage. Through a combination of these various factors circulation, nervous equilibrium and chemism of related parts are involved, both anatomical and physiologic balance is upset, and resistance of corresponding viscera affected. Reciprocal innervation and the axone reflex are also disturbed, all of which are important predisposing causes that disturb resistance of tissues and organs, upset their correlated mechanisms and render active various possible infections and toxins that otherwise a normal circulation, nervous and endocrine systems, and oxygen supply would rapidly and successfully combat and restore the organism to normal. Thus from the practitioner’s standpoint there are three points to always keep in mind: readjustment of the lesion; correction of the forces, habits, environment, etc. that produce the lesion; and hygienic attention of the body after lesion adjustment in order that normal condition may be maintained. A thorough study of the physiologic movements of the spine is a prerequisite to an understanding of the various possible abnormal appositions, though it should be appreciated that these movements are not consonant or applicable to many abnormal conditions. Pathology reveals many gradations and combinations not found in normal conditions. Frequently the key of a successful technique rests upon an understanding of the individual make up of the interosseous lesion.

It has not been the purpose of this section to go into details but rather to follow logically an outline of osteopathic etiology and pathology. The various details will be found in the osteopathic works on Principles as well as in the experimental articles referred to. It should be understood that the osteopath believes thoroughly in _vis medicatrix naturae_ whether the indications are for stimulation or inhibition or for the basic readjustment. Generally speaking, however, therapeutic philosophy resolves itself (ultimately) into the principle that a cure depends upon giving an impetus to impaired, habitual and latent forces, which in the osteopathic field implies fundamentally adjustive manipulation whereby the resultant impetus or physiological stimulus is initiated.

In a word, osteopathy premises that the body is a vital and physical mechanism subject to derangements, structural alterations, and functional changes, as results of violence on the mechanical plane, as well as disturbances on the psychic and biochemic planes. Hence, osteopathic philosophy is inclusive of preventive, palliative and curative measure.

FOOTNOTES:

[15] Sajous—The Internal Secretions and the Principles of Medicine.

[16] Foster—Medical Dictionary.

[17] Hulett—Principles of Osteopathy.

[18] Dana—Text Book of Nervous Diseases.

[19] Barker—Reference Hand Book of the Medical Sciences.

[20] Delafield & Prudden—Hand Book of Pathological Anatomy and Histology.

[21] Adami—Inflammation, Allbutt’s System of Medicine.

[22] See Case Reports, American Osteopathic Association.

[23] Clark—Applied Anatomy.

[24] McConnell—Numerous articles Journal A. O. A. 1905-19, Bulletins Research Institute; Deason, Bulletins Research Institute, Deason’s Physiology; Burns’ Osteop. World, Aug. 1905; Basic Sciences, Bulletins Research Institute; Pearce, Osteopathic Physician, Nov. 1905.

[25] Sajous—Internal Secretions and the Principles of Medicine.

OSTEOPATHIC DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS

Osteopathic Diagnosis

In osteopathic diagnosis the spine is the first and greatest object of interest, for on the result of its examination will depend the treatment to be given which is in turn hoped to bring about recovery.

As it is the structure on which rests the weight of the body the practiced eye is able to detect at a glance, by the poise and gait of the patient, if there is an abnormal condition affecting any considerable area of the spinal column. It is well to observe these points, especially in the female, before having them prepare for examination, as it will often give a clue to sources of trouble through faulty carriage, improper dress, particularly corset and shoes. Slight changes of gait, unnoticed by the patient may be of great aid in determining the beginning of disease in the spinal cord.

No osteopath is justified in accepting a patient who will not permit every examination deemed necessary, as remote and obscure lesions are frequently the cause of disease, so preparation of the patient for the first scrutiny is of importance. This cannot be made with the patient fully clothed, as visual observation is second only to the touch in making one’s deductions. Neither can palpation be made through more than one thickness of clothing with accuracy, and examination next to the skin is always preferable. This need in no way ever cause complaint, for with the use of a loose fitting short kimono, with all outer clothing removed except the knit undergarment, and with skirt bands loosed, a complete survey of the whole dorsum from occiput to coccyx can be had without the slightest unnecessary exposure. It is well to remember that the patient has come for help and the osteopath is not justified in sacrificing thoroughness for any exaggerated feelings of modesty. With tact and care in the use of the garments the most sensitive ones need feel no hesitation in coming for treatment.

A complete history of the case should be taken before the examination begins, former methods of treatment, symptoms, environment, etc., as it will aid in the final conclusions. It is well to have blanks for keeping records of all cases.

Probably the most comfortable manner to begin physical examination is to seat the patient on a table squarely with hands placed upon the knees, then raise the garment and expose the whole back. Begin by noting the texture of the skin, if it is clear, pigmented, blotched, or has eruptions. Try the capillary reflex by pinching or stroking quickly with the finger tips or the blunt end of a pencil. Find if it is moist or dry and also outline the areas of changed temperature, if any. Then observe the general contour of the spine with the patient sitting upright, to find how near it is to the normal body curve.

Occasionally having the patient alternately sit and stand will, by comparison, throw light upon the condition. With the patient bending forward place the hands on the crest of the ilia and see if they are of equal height.

Occupation may result in over development of one side or there may be congenital asymmetry[26]. Note position of the scapulæ and habit of posture in sitting and standing.