ADVERTISmU 
, '.pr - ~ - Q-, r 
IN SPECIAL BRANCHES OF : ~ ° 
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH—ITS POSITION. 
One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. 
WHERE IT CAME FROM. 
“QUACK” THE CRY OF “REGULARS.” 
Regulars would have People believe that Advertising is Evidence of Ignorance 
and Fraud. 
BY 
W. c. Brinkerhoff, M.D. 
• Specialist 
80 E. Madison Street, 
MC VICKER’S THEATRE BUILDING. 
CHICAGO, ILL. 
Craduate Chicago College of Physicians and Surgeons. 
Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1890, by William C. Brinkerhoff, M. D., in 
the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Dr. UI. <?. Brii^erfyoff, 
FORMERLY OF OHIO, 
Rectal Specialist. 
Rectal Diseases—Piles, Fistula, Fissure, Rectal Ulceration, Polypus, Pruritus 
(itching piles), and Chronic Diarrhoea cured without use 
of Knife, Ecrasure, Cautery or Anaestnetic. 
No Detention from Business except in SEVERE Cases, 
no medicines by stomach. 
RESIDENCE : 
145 OAKWOOD BOULEVARD, 
NEAR COTTAGE GROVE AVE. * 39TH ST. 
HOURS -! Mon., Wed. & Fn., 7 to 9 p.m. 
( Sundays, 2 to 4 p.m. 
Telephone 10087. 
OFFICE : 
Rooms 39, 39i4, 40 McVicker's Theatre Bldg. 
78 to 82 MADISON ST. 
HOURs:-j a fo1? p.m! P m [ Except Sunday. 
TAKE ELEVATOR. 
TELEPHONE 719. _A.nD^TEiK,Tisiisra- 
IN SPECIAL BRANCHES OF 
MEDICINE g? SURGERY. 
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH—ITS POSITION. 
ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS. 
WHERE IT CAME FROM. 
"QUACK” THE CRY OF "REGULARS.” 
REGULARS WOULD HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT 
ADVERTISING IS EVIDENCE OF IGNORANCE AND FRAUD. 
BY 
W. C. Brinkerhoff, A 1.1 
RECTAL SPECIALIST, 
80 East Madison Street, Chicago, III. 
MCVICKER'S THEATRE BLDG., 
Graduate Chicago College of Physicians and Surgeons. 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890, by William C. Brinkerhoff, M. D., 
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
CHICAGO, ILL.: 
Thayer & Jackson Stationery Co., 
1890 CONTENTS. 
PAGE. 
Introductory 3 
Medical Advertising 5 
One Reason Why “The State Board of Health will be abolished” (Chicago 
Tribune) 6 
Agreement to release Illinois State Board of Health from liability for 
damages on payment of $1000 7 
Receipt—Release of State Board of Health from claim for damages.... 7 
Affidavit before Probate Court 8 
Defense before Alumni Association 8 
Why not Advertise?—Chicago Tribune (Editorial) 11 
Defense of Medical Advertising 11 
More Medical Old Fogyism—Cleveland (O.) Leader and Herald (Editorial) 13 
Unprofessional Conduct—Nebraska State Journal (Editorial) 13 
Why Shouldn’t Physicians Advertise?—New Orleans Times Dem. (Editorial) 13 
Doctors and Newspapers—Cleveland (Ohio) Plain Dealer (Editorial) 13 
Cleveland (Ohio) Leader and Herald (Editorial) 13 
Toledo (Ohio) Blade (Editorial) 14 
Ashland (Ohio) Gazette (Editorial) 14 
Galion (Ohio) Inquirer (Editorial) 14 
Fruits of Advertising 14 
A Prescription for them—Chicago Times (Editorial) 15 
Medical Ethics—Toledo (Ohio) Evening Bee 15 
Register—Rockford 111 15 
Is a physician justified in Advertising 15 INTRODUCTORY. 
This pamphlet is intended as a defense of Medical Advertising by the 
Specialist. It is written in hopes that younger and more liberal members of the 
Profession may adopt its views and use their influence to make the Code of 
Ethics more liberal. It is not intended as an attack upon College Professors or 
Ilegulars as men but upon their position as regards advertising. As men, we re- 
spect them, but their views we condemn. It is also hoped that this pamphlet 
will lead suffering humanity to see that Medical advertising is for their good as 
well as for the benefit of the advertiser. Advertising informs the sufferer of the 
Specialty to which the physician gives his undivided attention. The Specialist 
ought to be more capable of mastering disease in his specialty than the general 
practitioner who has so vast a field to work in as the general practice of Medi- 
cine and Surgery. The writer for years has observed the unjust treatment ac- 
corded the Medical men who have ventured to “advertise” in any but a 
“Regular” way. (The Regular way is to be a Medical College Professor or 
Contributor to a Medical Journal.) He has seen men of unquestioned ability, 
men of integrity and unimpeachable moral character, men adapted by nature to 
the practice of Medicine and Surgery, ostracised by Medical Societies, looked 
down upon by members of the Regular Profession and branded by the “ Regu- 
lars ” as frauds, impostors and ignoramuses ; he has seen the finger of scorn 
pointed at them, heard them spoken of and to in derision, and all because they 
ventured to advertise; in other words because they did not care to be bound by 
a Code of Ethics formulated by Professors of Medical Colleges. 
The writer himself has run the gauntlet; he has advertised and suffered the 
punishment meted out by the Regulars, and in this small pamphlet gives some of 
the history of the means adopted by men of prominence in the Medical Pro- 
fession, (members of the Illinois State Board of Health) to prevent him from 
practicing in Illinois after having fully qualified to do so. He will also endeavor 
to present the position of his Alumni, and, last but not least, he will present the 
views of the press. The object is two fold. 
First, to show to what extreme the Regular Profession will go to ruin a 
man who has the independence to break away from their pernicious “ Code of 
Ethics,” and, secondly, to place the matter in such light before the people that 
they will see that advertising does not corrupt, disqualify or make a physician 4 
any less skillful in lxis chosen Specialty. The day is at hand when the Spec- 
ialist who advertises commands the respect and confidence of American Citi- 
zens, and the Medical Profession will find their opposition of no avail. We will 
admit that there may be dishonorable men who have adopted advertising and 
rejected the Code of Ethics, but all callings in life have their black sheep. The 
Legal Profession, the Regular Medical Profession, and even the Ministry has its 
faulty members. 
The author desires especially the attention of younger members of the Pro 
fession, and of the more liberal, to the following pages, and he trusts that public 
opinion as expressed therein by leading papers of the country (Editorially) will 
be a stepping-stone to a policy on their part which will lead them to take the 
“ Code of Ethics” from the hands of the College Professor and make it more 
liberal—more American in its provisions. The Code of Ethics is the College 
Professor’s shield as an advertising monopolist (if members of the Profession 
do not advertise as he dictates they must not advertise at all. As all cannot be 
Professors many must remain in obscurity or be black-listed for making them- 
selves known through other Channels.) Destroy the portion of the Code rela- 
tive to advertising, or make it more liberal, and the “Professors” will become 
less numerous, as the monopoly will then be broken. MEDICAL ADVERTISING. 
The past century probably has witnessed a greater change in the practice 
of Medicine than any preceding, both as to remedies and their administration, 
and the manner of practice. 
In years gone by the “ family doctor ” was THE man of his neighborhood. 
HE was the ideal of knowledge as regards all human ills. Let the body have a 
pain, an ache,vision become impaired, hearing begin to fail, diseases peculiar to 
woman kind invade the home, an aching tooth unbalance our fore-fathers, or 
corns impair their locomotion, and the “ family doctor ” was immediately called 
to give relief; he was the panacea for ALL ills. He was supposed to be a 
veritable Encyclopedia Medica. Rectal troubles were beyond his knowledge, 
however, only so far as salves might give relief; and to the discredit of the aver- 
age practitioner of this day salves are the extent of his treatment when a patient 
suffering with Rectal disease applies for a cure. Suffering humanity began to 
reason with itself. 
One mind, no difference how great, was seen to be inadequate to master 
Medicine and Surgery in all its branches. A slight knowledge of each branch 
might be obtained, but to master all was a physical and mental impossibility 
Many a hoary-headed M. D. has gone to his grave after a life time of 
realizing that life was too short. He was only commencing to know his busi- 
ness. Mastering the practice of Medicine in all its branches was like unto a 
camel passing through the eye of a needle. It was impossible. As a conse- 
quence of the foregoing facts men in the practice of Medicine realized their in- 
ability to successfully cope with Medicine and Surgery as a whole; they real- 
ized that there was a life-time study in very small portions of the entirety. 
To be successful and masters of their life-work they adopted Specialties; 
hence we have Oculists, Aurists, Gynecologists, Dentists, Obstetricians, and, in 
fact, Specialists in all branches. 
Then here is the fountain-head of Medical advertising—to acquaint suffer- 
ing humanity with that Specialty to which we propose to devote our life time 
is our object. As all cannot be “Medical College Professors” (there is an over 
production now) and thus gain notoriety, we must naturally seek other channels. 
As the only other channel (being a contributor to Medical Journals) does not 
reach those afflicted (only going to the Medical Profession) we are compelled to 
disregard the Code of Ethics. We are bound in narrow limits. We must choose 
between two things. Remain true to the Code (and in obscurity the best years 
®f our life) or announce to the public through broad channels the Specialty we 6 
DR. W. C. BR1NKERU0FF 
have adopted, and thus through an extensive acquaintance build up a practice in 
which we give our patients the advantage of a more extensive experience and 
the best years of our life. 
However, there is a stumbling block in the way; the Regular cries Quack, 
and tries to lead all others to believe it to be true. Why? Because we advertise, 
but do not advertise in his way i. e. through a Professorship. If we advertise 
(irregularly) we are dubbed a quack. An inexperienced man in Medicine or 
Surgery IS DOUBTLESS A QUACK. Webster sajrs a quack is an ignorant 
'practitioner. We hence have our choice. We can be an inexperienced Regular 
with small practice, and the sitting part of our clothing worn through, and 
Heaven only knowing what next we’ll do, or we can by advertising build up a 
large, lucrative practice; be experienced, successful and independent (but irregu- 
lar). Thank you, gentlemen of the Profession, we choose the latter. We prefer 
it to inexperience, servility to old fogy ideas, and a life time spent in mere hand 
to mouth existence. Having outlined our position relative to advertising we 
present the following pages for your perusal. They will show that the Illinois 
State Board of Health has recognized, in a very substantial manner, the right of 
physicians to advertise. The Supreme Court of Illinois having also set its seal 
of approval upon said right we feel that we are on solid ground and present 
herewith solid arguments (Newspaper Editorials) that have come through prom- 
inent channels. 
To present clearly the unbroken chain of the “Regulars’” opposition to 
Medical advertising we are compelled to give some portions of the writer’s ex.- 
perience. 
In the latter part of 1888 the writer was summoned from Ohio to treat a 
prominent citizen of Chicago. Through the influence of this gentleman, and 
Mr. A. M. Billings, President of the Home National Bank, we determined to 
build up a practice in Chicago; but being very busily engaged in Ohio we could 
not spend but three days in Chicago, every four weeks, which we did, stopping 
at the Grand Pacific Hotel. After visiting the city regularly for a short time, 
tee were so well pleased with an increasing practice that we permanently loca- 
™d here in 1889. December 28th, 1888, we applied to Dr. J. H. Rauch, Secretary 
of the ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH for a license to practice 
within the state, at the same time giving him to understand that we intended 
to follow a Specialty and would advertise. He refused to grant the license at 
the time, but subsequently did so; not, however, until he saw that his arbitrary 
way of conducting the office (without sanction of law) was working injury to 
himself and might result disastrously to the Board, as the following taken from 
the Chicago Tribune, April 15th, 1889, would indicate. We might mention that 
there had been a bill introduced in the legislature to abolish the “ State Board 
of Health. 
Chicago, March 18. 
Editor of the Tribune.—I hand you to-day copies of Ohio papers containing 
editorials on medical legislation, and would ask your considerate perusal of 
them, and in connection therewith consider the action of the Illinois State Board 
of Health in the following matter: 
The 28th day of December last I made application to Dr. J. H. Rauch, 
Secretary of the State Board of Health, for a license to practice medicine in the 
State of Illinois. To secure said license 1 presented the following credentials: 
ONE KEASON WHY THE STATE BOAKD OF HEALTH WILL BE ABOLISHED. ON MEDICAL ADVERTISING. 
7 
1. A diploma of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Chicago, is- 
sued the spring of 1886, bearing signatures of all the professors of said college, 
and its seal. 
2. A sworn statement by myself that I had come into rightful possession of 
said diploma by complying with the requirements of the college. 
3. Three letters of indorsement from three of the prominent regular phy- 
sicians of the city, among them one from Dr. D. A. K. Steele, Secretary of the 
Faculty of the College, the other two letters from ex-professors of the same 
school (law, however, requiring but one letter.) 
4. A sworn statement from a prominent physician of my former place of 
residence (Upper Sandusky, Ohio,) indorsed by five other physicians, and their 
indorsements certified to byD.D. Clayton, Probate Judge, Wyandotte County, 
Ohio, as to my qualifications and standing as a physician and specialist, stand- 
ing in the community, and moral character. 
5. I paid to the Secretary of the Illinois State Board of Health the fee re- 
quired by law ($5, a receipt for which I hold) for the granting of said license. 
I have made several requests for the license to be granted, and now at the 
end of nearly three months, I am refused, and that simply because I advertise or 
desire to do so. My credentials are all admitted (by the board) to be above 
question, and yet after the decision of the Appellate Court that a physician is 
at perfect liberty to advertise, I am refused the necessary license to practice 
within the State because of my intention to advertise, and no other reason is 
urged by the board. Is this action upon the part of the Secretary of the State 
Board, and the Board itself not worthy of your editorial consideration. 
In addition to the above credentials, I have been indorsed by one of 
Chicago’s most prominent citizens—A. M. Billings, President of the Home 
National Bank—as being worthy in every way of the license, and he, as a friend 
has asked that said license be granted, and it has been refused. 
Trusting you will give this the consideration that you may think justice 
demands, I am respectfully yours, Physician. 
The above article (written by the author and signed “Physician ”) appeared 
Monday morning, April 15th. The same evening the following agreement w" 
entered into. (The Board, or its friends, realized that something must be 
done.) 
Chicago, April 15, 1889. 
In consideration of $150 to me paid, and in consideration of $850 to be paid 
on or before April 27,1889, I hereby agree to release all parties for any damages, 
losses, or expenses I may have incurred by reason of the refusal of the State 
Board of Health to grant me a certificate to this date, and that certificate be 
issued to me promptly and unconditionally within twenty-four hours from this 
date. Signed, 
“ Agreed to: F. W. Riley. 
W. C. Brinkerhoff. 
“ Witness: P. R. Westfall.” 
In connection with this agreement I herewith append a receipt given by 
myself, April 27, as follows: 
Chicago, April 27, 1889.—In consideration of the sum of $1,000 to me paid, and the receipt 
of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby release all parties connected with the State Board of 
Health from any claim for damages, los>es, and expenses, suffered or incurred by me, directly or 
indirectly, through the refusal of the Illinois State Board ot Health to issue its certificate, enti- 
tling me to practice medicine or surgery in the State of Illinois prior to April 16, 1889, on which 
day said certificate was issued to me with the understanding that at no future time shall I be 
interfered with in my practice by the Board because of advertising. W. C. BRINKERHOFF. DR. W. C. BRINKERHOFF 
8 
To show more conclusively that advertising was the only ground upon 
which the Board refused to grant a certificate, I append the affidavit (of my 
former associate physicians) which was forwarded to the Board while my appli- 
cation was pending: 
Upper Sandusky, Oiiio, Dec. 28th, 1888. 
To whom it may concern: Since his childhood I have known Dr. W. C. Brinkerhofl, who 
is a native of our town. For two years he was under my instruction in High School, graduating 
honorably. I have known him through his student life, and can testify that he was a close stu- 
dent; always temperate, honorable and industrious—morally commanding the respect of our 
entire community, and professionally bears a reputation for success in his specialty (Rectal 
Diseases) beyond any question whatever, and commands the respect of our Medical Fraternity. 
I can recommend him to any individual professionally, or to any State Board of Health as worthy 
their commendation in every way. In his advertising he makes no claims which are untrue, and 
is competent to fulfill his promises. q. q. MASKEY M. D. 
[Subscribed in my presence, and sworn to before me this 28th day of December A.D. 1888. 
D. D. CLAYTON, Probate Judge, W. C. O.] 
Upper Sandusky, Ohio, Dec. 28, ’88. —We, Physicians and Surgeons, heartily endorse the 
contents of the foregoing affidavit by Dr. G. O. Maskey. 
A. BILLHARDT, M.D., 
former Ass’t Surg. 37th Regt. O.Y. I. 
r. n. McConnell, m.d. 
I. N. BOWMAN, M.D. 
O. C. STUTZ, M.D., 
Health Officer. 
G. W. SAMPSON, M.D. 
[The State op Ohio, Wyandotte County, ss: I, D. D. Clayton, the Judge of the Probate 
Court of said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing signatures are genuine, and that the 
parties are of our most reputable citizens and physicians. In testimony whereof I have here- 
unto set my hand and the seal of the said Court, this 28th day of December A.D. 1888. 
D. D. CLAYTON, Probate Judge, W. C. O.] 
Having thus defeated the Illinois State Board of Health in its attempt to 
deprive us of our rights as a graduate from a Regular Medical College (and as 
an American Citizen), and having settled with them on what we considered very 
reasonable terms, we felt that we would have no further trouble, and proceeded 
in our practice; but the Alumni Association, of which we were a member, felt 
that it must set its seal of disapproval upon “advertising,” and accordingly 
expelled us. The Secretary, Dr. T. A. Davis, (during the early part of 1890) 
conveyed the intelligence by letter that we were expelled from the association 
for “Advertising.” No other charges were preferred or considered. Not be- 
ing of the disposition to submit to indignities being heaped upon us (and not 
accorded even a word in our own defense) we immediately applied for a hear- 
before the association, and to the credit of its gentlemanly Secretary, we 
were granted the privilege of appearing before the association to defend our 
position. The arbitrary position of the regular school, as regards “advertising,” 
is only too well defined in the Association’s refusal to reinstate us. We had 
advertised, and hence were not good enough for their company. The defense 
made before the Association appears herewith in full. 
The Alumni Association. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Chicago: 
Gentlemen.—During the winters of 1884-85, 1885-86, I spent my time in the lect- 
ure rooms, dissecting rooms and laboratory of this building and listened to the 
same lectures and to the same professors as the graduates of ’86. I paid the 
same fees, complied with the same requirements, and passed the same exami- 
nations that you have. As a result of my labor I hold a diploma granted by this 
College on the 25th day of February, 1886. The diploma bears the signatures 
of all men who were then connected with the school. 
Being a graduate from this College I naturally became a member of this 
Alumni Association. Notice was sent me some time since, by your worthy Sec- 
retary, Dr. T. A. Davis, that I was expelled because of “ irregular practice.” 
(advertising). I requested a hearing before your honorable body, and as a result 
of such request 1 appear before you to-day, not as a member in good standing, 
but an outcast, and, why? Simply because I advertise. I make no pretension to 
deny the charge. I do not appear for personal gain or for re-instatement mere- 
ly, but to champion the cause of legitimate advertising by a specialist. By 
legitimate advertising I mean the ability of the advertiser to do what he claims. ON MEIHCA L AD VER RISING. 
9 
If the Alumni has based its foundation upon law and justice you cannot 
help but re instate me, and to look upon legitimate advertising as perfectly 
honorable in the practice of a specialty. % 
In a letter which recently fell into my hands, written to a patient of mine, 
by a prominent practitioner of Massachusetts, appears the following sentence: 
“You will find every advertised system a humbug, designed to get your money, 
whether you get benefit or not.” 
Now, gentlemen, see the injustice'of this statement. As well might we brand 
a prominent business firm of this city, who advertises, a fraud and calculated 
to rob us of our money, as to brand a specialist, who advertises, as such. We 
all advertise. 
There is not one of you who has left this College and entered practice but 
has issued his card, with his office location thereon, and placed his card where 
he thought it would do the most good. 
With the same justice might we declare the college, from which we gradu- 
ated, a fraud, as do the regular physicians declare the specialist, who advertises, 
a fraud. The announcement of our college is gotten up for the purpose of ad- 
vertising the college; it does not advertise the Kush Medical, Chicago Medical, 
or the Homeopathic Medical College, but it advertises the College of Physicians 
and Surgeons of Chicago. 
Gentlemen, each and every one of you as medical men, were conceived in 
printer’s ink, else how would you have known to have taken your course of lect- 
ures at the College of Physicians and Surgeons? Did you not get the an- 
nouncement, and notice therein the curriculum, and the class of men who are 
the professors; did not the course of study, and the general plan of the school, 
as advertised in that announcement, bring you here? 
For my part, I perused the announcement carefully before I determined to 
take my course at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. 
I judged its advantages by the prominence of the members of the Faculty; 
by its excellent course of study; by its proximity to the largest hospital in the 
city; by its excellent clinical advantages, both surgical and medical, and by the 
advantages which the fine building would indicate it possessed—all of which I 
found in its announcement. 
I contend that we are all advertisers; the difference between you as mem- 
bers in good standing of the Alumni Association, and myself, as an expelled 
member, is simply the degree of advertising and the amount which we see fit to 
employ in our various practices. 
The specialist who advertises to such an extent as I do is very quickly 
placed among the list of quacks. And now let us investigate the injustice of this 
charge. In the first place, we will refer to Webster’s definition of the two 
words: Webster in his Unabridged Dictionary defines advertise as: “To inform, 
to give notice, or to publish a written or printed account of.” If this is the sole 
and only cause of the charge against me I plead guilty. I not only plead guilty, 
but am proud of my position—as a champion of legitimate advertising by the 
specialist; but let us turn to the definition of quack, as laid down by Webster. 
As applied to medical men, the definition is: “A boastful pretender of medical 
skill which he does not possess; an impiric; an ignorant practitioner.” 
I do not in a boastful way say that I am above or beyond anybody else in 
treatment of disease, but I do say this, and without hesitation, that I can do, 
and do successfully, that which I claim in my advertisements. If you pronounce 
this quackery, then you, as medical men, do not accept the definition of Web- 
ster for the word. 
In my advertisements I claim that 300.000 treatments have been performed 
by the Brinkerhoff System of Rectal Treatment. This is the only statement in 
my advertisements which has been questioned, and I stand prepared at any 
time to substantiate the claim by sworn affidavits. 
We have sold instruments to 600 physicians in the United States, and here- 
with I give you an affidavit from only one, showing you the number of treat- 
ments performed by him: 10 
DR. If. C. BRINKERHOFF 
“The State op Ohio, Hamilton Co., ss: Before me, Deputy Clerk U. S. District Court, 
S. D. O., personally came W. I. Kelly, M. D., who, bein'* duly sworn according to law, deposeth 
and saith that on or about the 31st day of August, 1883, he purchased of Dr. A. W. BrinkerhofE & 
Sons of Upper Sandusky, Ohio, a complete outfit, instruments, etc., necessary to practice the 
treatment of Rectal Diseases by the Brinkerhoff System of Treatment. Since which time he 
has performed, by said system, Nine Thousand Treatments with not a single death resulting 
from treatment, and he heartily recommends it to his brother M. Ds. ns being the most humane 
and rational mode of Rectal Treatment known. And, further, deponent saith not. 
(Signed) W. I. KELLY, M. D„ 
City of Cincinnati, County of Hamilton, State of Ohio." 
“Sworn to and subscribed before me, at the county aforesaid, this 4th day of February, 
1889. ROB’T C. GURGI, Dep. Clk. U. S. Dist. Court S. D. O. 
The following gentlemen, who are using our treatment, make affidavit to 
the number of treatments performed by them, as follows: James Cress, M. D., 
Upper Sandusky, O., 3,935; E. P. Miller, M. D., New York, 9,000; John S. Bare 
M. D., East Saginaw, Mich., 10,000: N. R. Hook, M.D., Lincoln, Neb., 2,038; 
P. W. Emens, M. D., Syracuse, N. Y., 4,975; H. S. Kiskadden, M. D., Detroit, 
Mich., 5,312; H. W. Hamilton, M. D., Springfield, Mass., 6,097; Johnson Dodge, 
M. D., Pittsburg, Pa., 2,365; A. B. Jamison, M. D., New York City, 10,000; W. I. 
Kelly, M. D., Cincinnati, O., 9,000: total, 62,722 treatments by 10 of the 600 phy- 
sicians using the system. 
The statement that 300,000 treatments had been performed by the Brinker- 
hoff System was questioned by the Secretary of the Illinois State Board of 
Health. And now a few words as to my recognition by that Board: When I first 
applied for a certificate to practice in this State, the same was refused me, and 
that simply and wholly upon the ground of advertising. My application was 
made in December, 1888; the Secretary of the Board (and I believe the Board 
itself) saw fit to refuse me. I then took steps to compel a recognition by the 
Board. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois decided (in the early part of 
1889) that the Board had no right to revoke a certificate because of legitimate 
advertising. In this decision they recognize and make advertising by a phy- 
sician legal in every sense of the word. 
On the 16tli of April, the State Board of Health saw fit to grant me a cer- 
tificate, and that with the distinct understanding on their part that I should and 
would advertise; in fact, I refused a certificate on any other grounds. 
Further than this, I will now read you an agreement which was entered into 
before my certificate was granted. This agreement has been fully complied 
with, but there are verbal agreements (made at the same time) which have not 
yet been fulfilled—what they are I am not at liberty to inform you at present. 
[See agreement to pay $1,000, page 7.] 
In connection with this agreement I herewith read you a receipt given by 
myself on the 27th day of April, as follows: [See Receipt given April 27, page 7.] 
Gentlemen, I have been granted a certificate by the State Board of Health— 
I have been fully recognized by them as an honorable practitioner, and I have 
my serious doubts whether any of you have received one thousand dollars 
($1,000) from the Board, or any of its members, at the time you received your 
certificate. Advertising pays! 
After the foregoing facts, can you afford, or dare you, in the face of justice 
and law (the Supreme Court having decided that advertising is legal), expel one 
of your members in the face of these decisions, or are you so arbitrary in your 
dealings with members that there is no reason whatever in your decisions? 
Washington said: “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins 
of liberty abused to licentiousness.” No credit is due the Association, surely, if 
it is founded on the abuse of liberty. ON MEDICAL ADVERTISING. 
11 
I am aware that the constitution of our Alumni, based upon the code of 
ethics, prohibits advertising; it not only prohibits advertising, but goes further 
and prohibits the announcement that the worthy poor shall be treated free. The 
day has come when such clauses in the constitution of any alumni or medical 
society should be a thing of the past. 
That the interest in the alumni meeting was not confined to members of the 
Association alone was fully demonstrated by the fact that the Chicago Tribune, 
Times, Inter Ocean and Herald each sent reporters to the meeting, and the fol- 
lowing morning reported the proceedings in articles varying from a half 
column to two columns in length. This was followed by editorial in Chicago 
Tribune, and subsequently was taken up generally by papers outside of 
Chicago. The editorials as they appeared in various papers are printed in full 
and are clear and concise. 
From Chicago Tribune, March 27, 1800, [Editorial]; Why not Advertise?—Asa general 
rule a newspaper favors the cause of the man who advertises, if his advertisement does no- 
olfend good taste and public propriety, and from this point of view alone THE TRIBUNE is dist 
posed to defend Dr. Brinkerhoff, a young practitioner, who has been dropped by the College of 
Physicians and Surgeons because he has advertised his special line of practice in the public 
papers. But, apart from this, why should the profession longer retain this old and absurd cus- 
tom of not allowing its member to advertise? In the case of Dr. Brinkerhoff, for instance, the 
Tnhune has been informed by one of the most prominent citizens of Chicago that he has been 
completely cared of a most painful disease (which other physicians had been unable to remove) 
by the doctor; that he was induced to apply lo him by reading his advertisement. Probably others 
can give the same testimony. Why, then, should a physician who has made a special study of 
some form of disease and finds a special remedy for it, or has special skill in treating it, be de- 
barred from announcing that fact in a modest advertisement? Why should he be prevented from 
making the fact public? One can readily understand why self-laudation and brazen puffery should 
be debarred, for that is the trick of quacks, but puffery is one thing and a simple announcement of 
the specialty which the physician feels qualified to treat is another. The purpose of an adver- 
tisement is to bring those who want some thing in contact with those who have something to 
dispose of. The pnysician’s advertisement would answer the same purpose. The patient wants 
to be healed. The advertisement would acquaint him with the doctor who could heal him and 
who had the skill to deal with his special case. This is not puffery or quackery. On the other 
hand, it looks very much like humanity.” 
In Chicago Tribune of April 8th, appeared an article further defending 
Medical Advertising as follows; 
Chicago, April 7. [Editor Tribune]: Defense of Medical Advertising —The recent action 
of the Alumni Associaiion College Physicians and Surgeons of this city in expelling me from 
their association because of “ advertising ’ has placed ine in a position where I must defend my- 
self or else quietly submit to the unjust accusations of a regular (?) profession. Their action has 
compelled me to take a stand which from the earliest days of my medical schooling has seemed 
a just one, i. e., that truthful advertising by the specialist is honorable and should not only be 
looked upon in that light by the public but should receive the sanction of the regular profession, 
and to that end their musty code of ethics should be changed and the clause prohibiting adver- 
tising be abolished. 
That poition of the ethics relating to advertising is a relic of the days when water was re- 
fused a feverish patient and the lancet and bleeding were the only hope (in the eyes of the 
profession) of saving their patients from a speedy death. To-day, were a physician to advocate 
these old theories he would be denounced, and justly so. However, the time is witnin the recol- 
lection of this generation when fever and water, according to the regniar profession were aivag- 
onists; the lancet and doctor fast friends. The profession, be it said to their credit, have abol- 
ished the above ideas, but still cling to their ancient idea that “ to advertise is dishonorable, un- 
professional,” and just cause for the disbarment of the advertiser from any of the privileges 
accorded the dignified unadvertising “regular.” 
It devolves upon t he young men of the profession to renovate the code. Have the young 
practitioners not had the wool pulled over their eyes long enough ? Is the time not at hand 
when they should look on their surroundings with eyes of their own and judge what is best with 
minds of their own? They get their ideas from the professors of medical colleges; not to “ ad- 
vertise” is lectured to them from the time they enter college until they leave. I cannot better 
illustrate the relation of professor and student than by the reply of a selfish child to a playmate 
when asked to share his sweetmeats; “ No, it will make you sick,” at the same time calmly con- 
tinuing to devour them himself. The professor tells the students “they must not advertise. 
It will make them disreputable, irregular, and quacks.” Have they ever stopped to think while 
the professor stands before them and thus warns them of the evils’of advertising that it is his de- 
sire to advertise himself, that brings him before them as a teacher? He has a good thing; he is 
advertising himself, and at the same time the college is circulating printed matter bearing his 
name, his special lecturing and practicing branches, office address, etc. 
The medical college of the day is nothing bnt an “ advertising trust,” from which the young 
practitioner is debarred from entering until he has saved up enough money to buy some stock 
and thus secure a professorship. This done, he is on the inside. He is a member of the trust. 12 
DR. W. C. BRINKERHOFF 
Do you suppose for a moment that the stock of any medical college pays sufficient dividends 
to remunerate a busy physician forspending his time lecturing? To the contrary. I will ven- 
ture the assertion that there are very few medical schools that p <y their running expenses and 
interest on the amountof money invested in buildings, etc. If his stock pays no dividends, why, 
then, is he there? 
I do not condemn a professor for advertising. On the contrary it is commendable, but they 
deserve the condemnation of every sensible practitioner of medicine, young or old, for posing 
as non-advertising saints when they are really the greatest advertising sinners the profession 
has in its ranks. W. C. Brinkerhoff, M. D. 
Cleveland (Ohio) Leader and Herald, April 6, 1880, [Editorial]: More Medical Old 
Fogyism.—A regular practicing physician of Chicago, Dr. Brinkerhoff, has violated that absurd 
section of tiie medical code of ethics which prevents a doctor from advertising his business, 
and has been dropped from the College of Physicians and Surgeons as a punishment. The 
Chicago Tribune has this to say of the matter:—[See Chicago Tribune (Editorial), page 11.] 
The Tribune might have said that this wonderful code of ethics was framed 
not so much to prevent physicians from advertising as to prevent their paying for 
advertisements. No physician will object to columns of advertising so long as 
it does not cost him anything; and nothing pleases the average practitioner 
more than a long and fulsome free puff in connection with an important case 
in surgery or medicine. There is another thing: The physicians who advertise 
are usually young and progressive men that have had exceptional advantages 
to study the treatment of special diseases. The old-school physicians are jeal- 
ous of the success of these men, and the fact that they advertise their profession, 
and pay for the advertisements, is made an excuse for putting their names on the 
medical black list, and tabooing them as quacks. When the young and talented 
specialists (who are also regular practitioners) shall have succeeded in driving 
the old fogies to the wall, then this ridiculous code of ethics may be smashed, 
and the physicians and their patients will be better for it. 
Nebraska State Journal [Editorial]: Unprofessional Conduct— Dr. Brinkerhoff of Chi- 
cago has long been persecuted by the medical society of the State because he advertised. He went 
into the courts and procured an injunction against the attempt of the society to turn him out for 
advertising, th-i court doubtless holding it against public policy to permit this set of stigma to 
be put upon an American citizen for exercising his rights. Now, the college of physicians and 
surgeons have taken up the case of the doctor and has striken his name from the list of alumni. 
This petty persecution has attracted the attention of the press, and Brinkerhoff is getting some 
first-class advertising as a most successful practitioner in his specialty that will be calculated 
to make the college sick. There is no reason why a doctor should not be allowed to advertise 
as much as a lawyer, a clergym in or a teacher. A man has the natural right to let people know 
that he is aronnd and that he wants business and to tell them what he thinks he can do. The 
law against advertising was doubtless the device of the old practitioners in the profession, who 
didn’t like the young fellows to bring themselves before the public and thus take some of the 
bread out of their mouths. The young man must starve in silence or wait for some accident 
to advertise him, some happy cure that he performed in a wealthy family when the old man 
was out and could not be found in an emergency. Many of them vegetate their whole lives, 
their names and professions not being known to their next-door neighbors, and all because 
they are prohibited from letting the world know who they are and what they want to do. It is 
against the spirit of the nineteenth century to hedge the young and aspiring man about with 
these prohibitions. It is an accepted article of faith that “he that bloweth not his own horn, 
the same shall not be blown.” The verdant physician is told at the threshold of his career that 
it is “ unprofessional ” to advertise, and he, in his greenness, thinks there is something ex- 
cessively weighty and solemn about the word “unprofessional.” But if he finds it is thoroughly 
professional to starve because no one has been told that he wants a job, and he dare not say he 
does, the time will come when he will weary of his etiquette, and if he has the requisite nerve he 
will make just the sort of kick for life, liberty and the pursuit of business that Dr. Brinkerhoff 
makes in Chicago. 
New Orleans Times Democrat, May 4th, 1890, [Editorial]: Why Shouldn't Physicians 
Advertise?—A good deal of excitement and some strong feeling have been created North by the 
action of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in Chicago, in dropping from its roll of mem- 
bership a specialist physician in good standing because he was guilty of the atrocious crime of 
advertising in the newspapers. The physician in question (W. C. Brinkerhoff. M. D.) is a young 
man who appears to have made in that particular branch of medicine to which he has devoted 
special attention, a scientific discovery, whose virtues many prominent citizens of Chicago 
and elsewhere have attested from their personal experience of it. It was Dr. Brinkerhoff’s 
new-fangled method of apprising the world through the press in paid advertisements of 
the treatment he adopts in curing certain classes of ailments that brought down the proverbial 
“odium medicorum’’ upon him and led to the erasure of his name from the college rolls. 
It would be difficult to say why a rule prohibiting a physician from announcing his special- 
ty, if he has one, in a modest and decent advertisment in a paper circulating widely among the 
people, should ever have crept into the code of medical ethics ; and still more difficult to devise ON MEDICAL ADVERTISING. 
13 
a reason why the rule, which did find its way into the code, should not have disappeared before 
now in the light of modern progress. “ One can readily understand,’’ as the Chicago Tribune 
says, “ why self-laudation and brazen puffery should be debarred for that is the trick of quacks; 
but puffery is one thing, and a simple announcement of the specialty which the physician 
feels qualified to treat is another. The purpose of an advertisement is to bring those who 
want something in contact with those who have that something to dispose of. The 
physician's advertisement should answer the same purpose. The patient wants to be healed. 
The advertisement would acquaint him with the doctor who could heal him and who has 
the skill to deal with his special case, 'this is not puffery or quackery; on the other hand it 
looks very much like humanity.” 'there is no small am >untof relevancy in the charge brought 
by Dr. Brinkerhoff himself in this matter against the professional staff of medical colleges, who 
support the musty code for their own special aggrandizement. He says: “It devolves upon 
the young men of the profession to renovate the code. Have the young practitioners not had the 
wool pulled over their eyes long enough? Is the time not at hand when they should look on their 
surroundings with eyes of their own and judge what is best with minds of their own ? They 
get their ideas from the professors of medical colleges. Not to “ advertise ”is lectured to them 
from the time they enter college until thev leave. I cannot better illustrate the relation of pro- 
fessor and student than by the reply a selfish child to a playmate when asked to share his 
sweetmeats: “ No, it will make you sick at th same time calmly continuing to devour them 
himself The professor -ells the students “ they must not advertise. It will make them disrep- 
utable, irregular and quacks.” Have they ever stopped to think while the professor stands be- 
fore them, and thus warns them of the evil of advertising, that it is his desire to advertise himself 
that brings him before them as a teacher ? He has a good thing; he is advertising himself and 
at the same time the college is circulating printed matter bearing his name, his special lecturing 
and practicing branches, office address, etc. The medical college of the day is nothing but an 
“ advertising trust,” from which the young practitioner is debarred from entering until lie has 
saved up enough money to buy some stock and thus secure a professorship. This done, he is on 
the inside. He is a member of the trust. Do you suppose for a moment that the stock of any 
medical college pays sufficient dividends to remunerate a busy physician for spending his time 
lecturing? To the contrary, I will venture the assertion that there are very few medical schools 
that pay their running expenses and interest on the amount of money invested in buildings, etc. 
If his -tock pays no dividends, why, then, is he there? I do not condemn a professor for advertis- 
ing. On the contrary, it is commendable, but they deserve the condemnation of every sensible 
practitioner of medicine, young or old, for posing as non-advertising saints when they are really 
the greatest advertising sinners the profession has in its ranks ” Finally, when physicians show 
an indisposition to have their names blazoned in the papers in connection with any great surgical 
operation in which they may be engaged, or in any professional movement in which ihey happen 
to be leaders or prominent actors, and when they cease to be solicitious about having their occa- 
sional departures from the scene of their practice, and their return home agai carefully chroni- 
cled in the colamns of newspapers merely for the advantage and convenience of their patients, of 
course, then will the public believe that their anti-advertising rule is neither a sh- m nor an expe- 
dient of enconomy, but a principle of action on which-depend, in a measure, the dignity and use- 
fulness of their noble profession. But, as it is, people will generally sympathize with Dr. Brink- 
erhoff against the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and will be apt to believe that the practi- 
tioner who keeps himself before the public by means of simple and modest advertisements in 
newspapers or otherwise, is more likely to attain success in his profession than hie more rigor- 
onsly conventional brother who would rather starve in obeying the code than to be rich by con- 
temning it. 
Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 11, ’90, [Editorial]: Doctors and Newspapers.—The an- 
tiquated, moss-covered delusion in medical circles that advertising (paid for) is undignified, is 
slowly but surely getting its death blow. The younger and more progressive element among med- 
ical practitioners are evidently arriving at the conclusion that while the circulation of a live news- 
paper is not, perhaps, as much in their line as the circulation of the blood, it is a very good thing 
and comes quite hundy in their business. That there is a disposition on the part of many regu- 
lar physicians of high standing to combat the ironclad rule against the use of printer’s ink, Chi- 
cago is just now furnishing ample proof. The following editorial, referring to a physician well 
known to the people of Cleveland and all parts of Ohio appear d recently in the Chicago Trib- 
une : (See Chicago Tribune editorial, page 11) The Plain Dealer indorses every word of the above 
and is pleased to note that the leading newspapers in different parts of the country are devoting 
much space t this time to the good missionary work of showing up the absurdity o' the advertis- 
ing clause of the medical code of ethics. This clause which prevents the graduates of the “regu- 
lar” schools of medicine from informing the public of any particular ability they may possess in 
the treatment of human ills, is deci ei ly too unprogressive for a class of men who have made 
such grand progress during the past half century. And when so successful a practitioner as Dr. 
Brinkerhoff is dropped from a medical association simply and only because he has seen fit to tell 
the public, through the medium of a newspaper that he has devoted himself to the special study 
of certain ailments and offers his service to the treatment of those ills, when this thing comes 
to pass, intelligent persons need not be blamed if they pause to wonder if this is really the year 
1890. In last Tuesday’s Tribune Dr. Brinkerhoff defends himself in a communication that is so 
directly to the point that we produce it below: (See Defense of Medical Advertising, page 11.) 
Cleveland Leader and Herald, April 7, ’90, [ Editorial]: A prominent medical college 
of Chicago has just dropped a confessedly able and reputable ph.\ sician from the rolls of its alum- 
ni association merely because he persists in advertising his business It is a reproach to the med- 
icnl profession that such a thing as this can happen in a progressive American city like Chicago 
and the time cannot be very far distant when nothing of the kind will be known anywhere. We 
have no sympathy with quacks who risk the lives of their patients in their ignorant and un- 
scrupulous practice and do much to degrade themedical profession, but there is no sound reason 
why an able and well qualified physician should be any the less trustworthy because he seeks to' 
iucrease his business by honest advertising. 14 
DR. W. C. BRINKERHOFF 
Toledo (Ohio) Blade [Editorial]: To those who watch the current of human life, there 
are some things which are as strange as they are inexplicable. For instance, there is the thing 
known as ••advertising.” The good doctors who deny each other the right to announce their wis- 
dom in the columns of the newspapers, are never aggrieved if the same purveyor of news mentions 
certain deeds of theirs with commendation. Thus, let a doctor cut off some one’s leg with unex- 
pected eclat, and the chances are that the doctor will fall over himself in his haste to get a mention 
of it in the daily paper. But let him announce in larger type than caps that he is a winner when- 
ever he tackles measles, and the entire association falls on him tooth and nail and makes life a 
burden to him. Then, again, on the other hand, let some young doctor of whom no one has heard, 
and to whom a favorable word in the paper would be of benefit, undertake to secure the insertion 
of such, and down come the advertising rates on him like the locusts came on the Egyptians of old. 
On this principle we wait until our friends are dead before we say they are good fellows, and the 
man who would be benefited by a kind word (this is the essence of advertising) is the very man, 
of all men, who does not get it. 
The Ashland (Ohio) Gazette, April lltli, ’90, [Editorial]: Dr.W. C. Brinkerhoff, formerly 
of Upper Sandusky, now of Chicago, and favorably known to a large class of people in this city, 
was expelled from the College of Physicians and Surgeons because he advertised his business. 
We can not see why any reputable physician or specialist should not advertise his business just 
as well as any firm dealing in merchandise. There are quacks in the medical profession as well as 
in all other professions, but this certainly does not operate against those who are well qualified in 
the calling which they have chosen. Because one man, or a half dozen men, engaged in selling dry 
goods or groceries prove dishonest or unworthy of public patronage, is no reason a class should 
engage in wholesale denunciation of all those who engage in these particular lines of business. 
Why, then, should the medical fraternity look with disfavor upon the man who inserts a legiti- 
mate announcement of what he can do, and what he does do? Surely we believe the day is not far 
distant when such petty grievances will find no place in the mind of the intelligent practitioner. 
Galion (O.) Inqcikeb, April 4, 1890, [Editorial]: The alumni of the College of Physicians 
and Surgeons, Chicago, has expelled Dr. W. C. Brinkerhoff from the Alumni Association, because 
he violates a silly and antiquated code of ethics by advertising his specialty in the newspapers. 
Dr. Brinkerhoff is a specialist of wide renown, and a veritable humanitarian, and the outrageous 
conduct of the old fogies in the association is to be deprecated. They had better go take some 
of their own physic and get some of the bile off their sour stomachs. The idea of dropping a 
member because he advertises in the newspapers to let the suffering public know that he can 
cure piles, fistula;, etc., is preposterous, barbarous and worthy only of minds diseased by a preju- 
dice which a rapidly moving world and progressive thought shouid have eliminated long ago. 
Let Dr. Brinkerhoff pursue the even tenor of his way, the newspapers aud the general public, 
who believe in progression, are with him, and demand that the old fogies who don’t believe in 
advertising must go. [The editor of the Gallon Inquirer was treated by the author. He speaks 
from experience.] 
Piunteu’s Ink, New York, .Tune 25th, 1890: Fruits of Advertising.—Nature at all times 
and periods of the year places in the hands of man fruits of its evolution. These fruits are the 
necessaries of man’s existence; but do we live only to exist? Existence seems to be the only 
aim of many, but there are others whose ambition is higher. The channels in which that ambi- 
tion is manifest are many. Commercial and professional channels are the two great arteries 
through which men of ambition ascend the ladder of prosperity. The heart of the commercial 
world which propels its stream of men so irresistibly on to fortune and success—which is really 
the fountain of a commercial life—is knifed and torn asunder by the professional world. While 
it beats and nourishes the commercial body, it is not allowed even an abiding place in the body 
of professional existence. I refer to advertising. The man of commercial life who enters the 
stream of business activity, looks first to the press as his medium of success. Through it he 
aitains prosperity. Printer’s ink is to his commercial existence as blood is to his physical exist- 
ence. Why should it not be so? “The pen is mightier than the sword,” and the press supplants 
them both. The heart of the commercial world (advertising) has made a Barnum, a Wanamaker, 
a Stewart, a Marshall Field, a Ilockefeller, an Armour, a Carnegie; and the charitable deeds where- 
by these men alone have distributed millions of dollars among the poor has endeared their 
names to many an unfortunate. Advertising has enabled them not only to do this, but their 
respective businesses, nourished by the great advertising heart, affords support to thousands 
of people. There is a wider scope to advertising than merely the financial benefit to the adver- 
tiser and the advertising medium. It is more than the heart of the commercial world. Its fruits 
are distributed to the ends of the earth. It is the foundation and provider of charity and benevo- 
lence. Yet two great professions (medical and legal) regard it “a principle held sacred” not to 
recognize advertising or the advertisers, if they are members of either of the professions. I re- 
fer particularly to the medical profession. The cry of the medical profession when one of its 
members advertises is, “ quack, fraud, imposter.” It matters not how prominent, skillful or 
successful professionally he may be; how much respected and honored by his fellow-citizens, 
and how prominent in society, or scrupulous in business transactions, if he advertises he brings 
upon his head the maledictions and unjust charges of fraud by the members of the regular pro- 
fession. A case in point occurred recently in Chicago. The Mutual Medical Aid Association 
was organized, with Carter Harrison (ex-Mayor of Chicago) as president; Dr. S. K. Crawford, 
Professor of Surgery, College of P. and S., and Dr. DeWolf, health officer of the city for years, as 
medical directors. The object of the association was to provide medical treatment for the poorer 
class of people gratuitously, outside of membership fees of from $2.00 to $5.00 per quarter. Its 
object was praise-worthy, commendable, almost charitable, and worthy the commendation of 
any American citizen. The association ventured to set forth its object and plan in circular 
form. For such action (saying to the poor that they would furnish them medical attendance at a 
rate within their means) Drs. Crawford and DeWolf were summoned before the Chicago Medical 
Society, and the accusations made there by certain members against them were shameful, such 
as accusing them of being the instigators of one of the greatest frauds of Chicago, etc. Espe- ON MEDTCAL AD VER TT8ING. 
15 
cially was it shameful when it is considered that there is no flaw in either of these prominent 
M. Ds. as regards character or professional ability. How long will this tyranny be exercised in 
America, the country that offered to our Puritan fathers the liberty of freedom in thought and 
speechV The fruits of commercial advertising are obvious and plain to be seen. Medical adver- 
tising is none the less fruitful; to the contrary, it embraces all that commercial advertising 
yields, and in addition calls the attention of suffering humanity to those who successfully treat 
special diseases. It is thus the means of relieving the suffering of our fellow men. The question 
will doubtless arise in the reader’s mind, why should an “advertising specialist’’ be more suc- 
cessful than a general practitioner? Our answer follows: The specialist confines his practice 
to one particular line; the general practitioner endeavors to cover the entire field of medicine. 
Can he do it? I have seen a hoary-headed M. D., after fifty years of practice, shake his head and 
say, referring to his practice, “ I’ve lived a life of guessing; I’m guessing now, and I’ll doubtless 
die a-guessing.” The specialist, being confined in his practice to only one portion of the great study 
of medicine and surgery, becomes more proficient. He treats more cases in his special line in a 
month than the general practitioner will in a year. If he advertises judiciously, he will at least 
double his practice. He gains more experience, which is our best teacher. “ It is better to be a 
master of one trade than a jack of all trades.” Yet the “regular general practitioner” would 
have people believe that the “advertising specialist” knows nothing, while in fact he has fifty 
chances to learn (in his specialty) where the “ regular ” general practitioner has but one. 
W. C. BRINKERHOFF, M.D. 
The Chicago Times, May 21, 1890, [Editorial]: A Prescription for Them.—'The organized 
medical profession in Chicago is deeply concerned lest one of its members should advertise their 
calling. -They are incidentally agitated if one or more of their number, out of interest for the ail- 
ing, and consideration for himself or themselves, should propose a departure from the ordinary 
charge made for professional service. Certain persons, among them physicians of repute, having 
devised a medical aid association proposing to furnish medical attendance of the best kind, when 
needed, to all members of the association for $12 a year, the M.Ds. of the Chicago society not in 
the plan made a dreadful bother about it. It was nothing to them that membership of this 
association was to be confined to wage-workers of limited means who might find the arrangement 
one of positive advantage. The doctors described it as soliciting patronage by objectional adver- 
tising, and of attempting to cheapen professional service by selling it in job lots. They wouldn't 
tolerate so beneficent, humane and practical a plan, and pronounced their anathema upon it. 
All men engaged in a business or a profession are dependent in greater or less degree upon 
advertisement, no matter what form it takes. The public is able to discern whether or not the 
advertisement is meretricious. The doctor who throws out his sign advertises to that extent. 
So does the lawyer. Euclt is glad of mention in the press calculated to advance his employment 
or to conduce thereto. One must make a stir in the world or go to the wall. If he has pots or 
kettles or professional service to sell, the fact must be made known in some way. The means 
ought to be a matter of individual judgment or preference. The Times is willing to believe that 
physicians, as a rule, are mindful in their charges of the pecuniary ability of their patients, and 
that no one suffering bodily ailments lacks the relief a leech may give merely because of inability 
to pay, but formally to discountenance a plan which is unobjectionable in itself and may be of 
great advantage to a body of wage-workers, upon the score that something or another in the 
musty ethics of the profession having a very mercenary suggestion may be quoted against it is to 
oppose social methods. When upon no better grounds than arc named they frown upon such a 
project as the Mutual Medical Aid Association of Chicago, the doctors of this city who are asso- 
ciated in a medical society seem to stand in need of a drastic dose of common sense. 
Toledo (Ohio) Evening Bee, April 23, 1890: Medical Ethics. Old Fogy Notions Must 
Give Way to Common Sense and Business Methods.—No other profession is so bound up in 
ethical requirements as the gentlemen who practice medicine. They have been in the non- 
advertising rut so long that they find it very hard to get out, but there are signs of progress on 
their part. Some of the best physicians and surgeons in the country have grown restive under 
the nonsensical rule of ethic6, and many are now advertising their claims to patronage. The 
threat of expulsion has kept many in line, but even that penalty has no terror to some. One of 
the most prominent cases that have come under public observation is that of Dr. W. C. Brinker- 
hoff, of Chicago, formerly of Upper Sandusky, this state. His father, Dr. A. W. Brinkerholf, 
was a celebrated phvsician and surgeon, and the son is a graduate of a regular college. He is an 
advertiser, and for that ethical offense has been expelled from the Chicago College of Physicians 
and Surgeons. The fight he made in the courts of Illinois is remarkable, and so signal "was his 
victory that the state board of health was obliged to pay him $1000 damages for refusing to 
license him to practice in the state. 
The Register, Rockford. 111., April 10th, 1890: Dr. Brinkerhoff, a Chicago physician who 
advertises in The Register, and whose skill in certain specialties has brought him some patients 
from Rockford, has been dropped by the Chicago College of Physicians and Surgeons for the 
crime of advertising. His professional learning and skill are not called in question and seem to 
be conceded, but his associates don’t think it proper that he should accelerate public knowledge 
af that fact. He is well spoken of by Rockford people who have tested his skill. 
Dr. O. M. Vaughan, in Covert Med. News, says: The question whether a physician is 
justified in advertising is one that is being discussed more and more every year. A generation 
ago the code of ethics was adhered to by physicians in the city as well as in the country, but at 
the present time the musty code seems to be retained for the purpose of impregnating students 
and country practitioners with the idea that to advertise is the greatest professional crime in the 
medical calendar. We say the code seems to be retained principally for the country practitioner 
because it is almost impossible to find an energetic and progressive city practitioner but who is 
connected with some medical school, polyclinic, hospital, public or private dispensary, bathing 
IS A PHYSICIAN JUSTIFIED IN ADVERTISING ? 16 
DR. W. C. DRINKERHOFF 
establishment, or some one or more of the many institutions, the majority of which, so far as one 
can learn, apparently exist for the sole purpose of booming the interested doctor. 
This mode of advertising is sanctioned by the code. Another form of advertising that is 
sanctioned by our ancient code has recently become popular, and like the above is confined 
almost ent rely to physicians residing in our large cities. We have received during the past year 
or two many cards and circulars from city physicians, calling attention to the fact that they 
would in the future confine their practice to diseases of women; to eye, ear, nose and throat; to 
nervous diseases, etc., etc. The most modest of these circulars informs the reader that the 
doctor has all of the most approved apparatus for treating successfully the diseases to which he 
coniines his practice, while many of them state in language intended for the public, that by 
years of extensive practice in his line the doctor is qualified to treat successfully cases not 
usually benefited by ordinary treatment. 
The above methods of advertising are only two of several that might be mentioned that 
are allowed by the code. Let a physician place the same matter in a daily paper, that he mails 
to physicians and to the public in circular form, and notice how quick a part of the profession 
will commence to kick, and it will also be noticed that the kickers are most always engaged in 
booming themselves in some manner. So long as a part of the profession are allowed to adver- 
tise we see no reason why all should not have the same privilege. If a physician is more skill- 
ful than his neighbors it would appear rational to any level-headed person that he was doing 
himself an injustice should he neglect to inform the people of hi6 skill; provided he did not 
advertise to do more than he could. It w >uld also appear advisable to reach the greatest num- 
ber of people with the least expense, and the doctor who advertises in the daily or weekly paper 
does so at much less cost than by the methods usually adopted. To incorporate a company, hire 
a room, get out necessary circulars, etc., to start a polyclinic, or some other of the in iny institu- 
tions that have sprung up within the past four or five years, requires quite a sum of money, and 
the method of advertising by professional circulars is also auite expensive. Aside from the few 
institutions that are started and couducted for educational purposes, the elaborate and expensive 
methods of advertising are adopted, not from any high moral principle, but to simply keep 
within the rules prescribed by our ancient code. The physician who booms himseif in some 
institution is no more honorable than a man who places a modest advertisement in a daily 
paper No code is required to teach an honorable man professional courtesy, and a dishonor- 
able man will not be governed in the least by any code. We believe the time is fast coming when 
all progressive physicims will feel at liberty to advertise as freely as men engaged in other busi- 
ness. and there is no reason why they should not do so except the restrictions laid down in an 
ancient code that not one doctor in ten has ever read, but of which the average physician stands 
in mortal terror. T[lE 
OF 
Rectal Treatment 
HAS BEEN IN USE TEN YEARS, AND WE ARE CONTINUALLY SHIPPING INSTRUMENTS AND 
REMEDIES TO ALL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
Physicians who are interested in the successful treatment of Rectal Dis- 
eases would do well to write for price list, terms, etc., to 
W. C. BRINKERHOFF, M.D., 
80 Madison St., Chicago, 111. 
The following letter contains the opinions of Drs. Miller & Jamison, of 
New York, after nine years use of the system : 
Dr. W. C. Brinkerhoff, 
39, 39} & 40, McVicker’s Bldg., 
78 to 82 Madison St., Chicago, 111: 
39 & 41 West 26th Street, 
New York, Jan. 24, 1890. 
My Dear Sir:—In reply to your inquiries of January 15tli, we would say 
that we have been using the Brinkerhoff System of Treatment for Diseases of 
the Rectum in our practice in this city about nine years. We do not fail to 
cure every case of hemorrhoids that we have had to treat, when directions 
are followed, and we believe that for such maladies it is an infallible remedy. 
For ulcerations, inflammation, fistula, etc., the results are excellent, and far 
superior to any treatment known to the medical profession. It is a system of 
treatment that ought to be in the hands of every physician in the United States. 
We have cured cases of hemorrhoids of forty to fifty years’ standing (that were 
supposed to be incurable by any system of treatment) leaving the rectum in 
apparently as healthy a condition as it ever was. We are constantly treating 
cases that have been cut, ligatured, chloroformed and tortured, without being 
cured, and they get well under The Brinkerhoff Treatment. You can hardly 
say too much in its praise. 
Very respectfully yours, 
DRS. MILLER & JAMISON. Editorial from THE AMERICAN LANCET, a 
leading Medical Journal, published 
at Detroit, Mich. 
The Meaning of the Teem “Quack.” 
November, 1890. 
IN general, the word quack is a term of reproach applied to 
medical men, its application usually being restricted to those 
who, in one way or another, advertise the accomplishment of 
large or impossible results. Loosely, also, it has been applied to 
even more important persons in the profession. In general, the 
regular is inclined to think of the homoeopath, the eclectic, the 
“Christian Scientist,” mind and faith-cure practitioners, etc., as 
quacks. In turn, these separate classes return the compliment. 
It is thus never a term of endearment or high appreciation of 
either manly or professional qualities. It is riot denied that a 
quack may be 'perfectly competent, but it is affirmed that with or 
without this he has that peculiar obliquity that sacrifices truth in 
order to gain the attention and patronage of the afflicted. 
However, we mainly desire to direct attention to the fact that 
we are likely to obtain a judicial decision of the meaning of the 
term. Two regular physicians of Buffalo had a disagreement over 
a case of hernia, as a result of which one called the other, in the 
presence of the county medical society, a “notorious quack.” 
For this defamation the injured physician seeks through the courts 
the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars; also large damages from 
the Buffalo Medical Journal for publishing the official report of 
the Secretary. It will be interesting to learn if the courts hold the 
Journal responsible for publishing an official report of a regular 
medical society. One thing is peculiar in the matter. The person 
seeking damages called the defendant in consultation. The latter, 
by his speech in the county society, is clearly guilty of consulting 
with one whom he calls a quack. What will the society do about 
this infringement of ordinary professional relations? To consult 
with quacks has never been regarded as the mark of a high-minded 
medical gentleman ; but having consulted with one, it seems to us 
it had been far better to have avoided the defiling of his own 
reputation, and kept his thoughts to himself. It was competent 
for him to discuss the value of electricity in treating hernia without 
involving any personalities. It looks bad for a consultant to revile 
the doctor who calls him in consultation. If the person calling 
him was a notorious quack, it would seem that the wise course 
would have been to have refused consultation ; at all events, such 
is the advice of the Code of Ethics, formulated by the profession, 
and regarded as a safe guide by large numbers of medical gentle- 
men.