Dr William Sutherland Dedicated His Life to Advance the Art of Osteopathy

As historians we must be held accountable for our historic references and for our interpretations of osteopathic history. Over the past 100 years, DOs have not by and large been dedicated—or trained—to respect accuracy in recording the details of our rich and vibrant history.

—Stephen Paulus, DO, 2007

(Southward. Paulus, written communication, June 2007)

Three long-standing problems go along to impede the authentic quoting of Andrew Taylor Still, Physician, DO. One problem is the uncertainty surrounding the copyright date of ane of his 4 books, The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Another is the use of 2 popular secondary sources containing excerpts of Dr Withal's writings^1,2—some of which are inaccurately quoted. These sources are Sage Sayings of Still: Selected from the Writings of Dr. A. T. Still, Founder of Osteopathy; With a Historical Sketch of Osteopathy and an Appreciation of Dr. Nevertheless (1935) and Doctor A. T. Still in the Living, His Concepts and Principles of Health and Illness (1950). The tertiary problem seems to be the inattentiveness of individual authors to verify, cite, or reference their own works against the original sources.

To aid authors in accurately citing and referencing quotations from Even so, I offer the following three solutions: (1) a chronological list of copyright awarding and grant dates of Nonetheless'southward published books, (ii) an argument dissuading the use of secondary sources for quoting Withal's work, and (3) the reiteration of a set of established rules for citing and referencing sources.

If Notwithstanding'due south words are going to continue being used to back up the osteopathic profession's ever-growing body of noesis, more care must be taken to reproduce his quotations accurately. Quotations attributed to Still are used in speeches, advertisements, textbooks, articles, and graduate theses. Nonetheless, when these quotations are compared with Withal's original writings, they frequently are found to be inaccurate. In some cases, these alterations are accidental; in other cases, they seem intentional. In either instance, it is academically problematic to modify a directly quotation without offering an explanation for the change. Failure to meet accepted academic standards in quoting and referencing Still'south statements could issue in serious consequences for the osteopathic profession as a whole.

Historical Review of Still's 4 Books

The iv books known to be released by Still are the post-obit:

Autobiography of Andrew T. Withal with a History of the Discovery and Development of the Science of Osteopathy (1897, revised 1908)
Philosophy of Osteopathy (1899)
The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy (1902)
Osteopathy Inquiry and Practice (1910)

First Book

Autobiography of Andrew Taylor Still with a History of the Discovery and Development of the Science of Osteopathy (referred to as Autobiography in the nowadays article) was Still's first book, published in 1897.³ The Library of Congress granted copyright number 4881 to the book in 1898.⁴ In 1907, the printing plates for the original edition were damaged in a fire, but because the volume remained in demand, Still revised the 1897 edition. This new version was published in 1908. From the revised edition, he omitted some ideas "which were practically of no importance to the general reader...."^five The modifications to the 1908 edition, though minor, have historical significance.

Because of a layout change, the revised version has fewer pages than the 1897 edition—even with the addition of a preface and 15 new pages. The 1908 version is now widely available, though that was not the case in the 20th century. The 1897 edition remains rare despite being reprinted in 1972.⁶ Unfortunately, the illustrations in the 1908 edition are of a poorer quality than in the original edition as a result of the fire that damaged the press plates.

Second Book

Still'south second book, Philosophy of Osteopathy, was published in 1899.^vii Its copyright application was registered with the Library of Congress on October 5, 1899, every bit number 64516.⁸ The Committee of Publication of the University of Applied Osteopathy was responsible for the outset reissue of Philosophy of Osteopathy in 1946. To this edition, the committee added a lengthy foreword praising Nevertheless and his contribution to osteopathy.⁹ Each of the academy'south members received a complimentary copy courtesy of Still'due south daughter, Blanche.⁹ All of the reprints published since the 1946 reissue are identical, including the foreword, pagination, style, and font.

Third Book: Defoliation Over Publication Appointment

However's third book, The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy (abbreviated as PMPO),¹⁰ was published in 1902—despite some evidence suggesting it was published and copyrighted in 1892. If it was published in 1892, PMPO would exist Nonetheless's first volume. The overwhelming show withal, supports a publication and copyright date of 1902, making it his third volume. The confusion continues today considering although the title page and preface of both editions are dated 1902, the left forepart affair of both the original edition (Figure one)^ten and its 1986 reprint (Effigy 2)^xi indicate that it was copyrighted in 1892.

Figure 1.

Preface and left forepart matter from Still AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Kansas City, MO: Hudson-Kimberly Pub Co; 1902. Reprinted with the permission of Jason Haxton, MA, Manager, Museum of Osteopathic Medicine^SM, and International Center for Osteopathic History.

Effigy 2.

Left front thing from Nevertheless AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Reprinted, Kirksville, MO: Osteopathic Enterprise; 1986. Originally published, Kansas City, MO: Hudson-Kimberly Pub Co; 1902. Reprinted with the permission of Jerry L. Dickey, DO, President, Osteopathic Enterprise.

As a result of this ambiguity in publication appointment, PMPO has been referenced using the supposed first copyright date (1892), the actual publishing and copyright appointment (1902), and the reprint date (1986). For case, the 2d edition of Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine references PMPO using all three dates¹²:

Nonetheless AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Original copyright by the author, Kirksville, Mo: 1892. Then, Kansas City, Mo: 1902. Reprinted, Kirksville, MO: Osteopathic Enterprises; 1986.

In some citations, Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine (third edition) references the 1902 version correctly, using i copyright date.^13-fifteen In other citations, the volume incorrectly uses 2 copyright dates^sixteen,17:

Still AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Kirksville, MO: Original copyright by the author, 1892. Then, Kansas City, MO: 1902. Reprinted, Kirksville, MO: Osteopathic Enterprises, 1986.¹⁶

Even so AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Hudson-Kimberly Publishing Co., 1892 and 1902.¹⁷

R.P. Lee, Do, writer of Interface: The Mechanism of Spirit in Osteopathy, astutely used a footnote to betoken that PMPO may have been published in 1902 instead of 1892.¹⁸

▪ Arguments for 1892—Both strong and weak arguments have been advanced in back up of an 1892 publication engagement for PMPO. William Garner Sutherland, Do, who was a student at the American School of Osteopathy in Kirksville, Missouri, between 1898 and 1900 and who also worked at a "print shop,"¹⁹ claimed to have seen the galley proofs of some of Still's manuscripts before they were published.²⁰ Dr Sutherland seemed sure that PMPO was written before Philosophy of Osteopathy, as he stated in Philosophy of Osteopathy: And its Application by the Cranial Concept, draft ²¹ (Figure 3). Unfortunately, Sutherland did not bespeak in which timeframe he thought PMPO was written.

Figure 3.

Text from page 15 of Sutherland WG. Philosophy of Osteopathy: And its Awarding by the Cranial Concept, draft. Date unknown. Sutherland Drove, Gibson D. Lewis Health Scientific discipline Library Archives, University of North Texas Health Science Middle, Fort Worth, TX. Reprinted with the permission of Craig Southward. Elam, MLS, AHIP, Senior Managing director for Collection Evolution, University of North Texas Health Science Heart, Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Worth.

Farther evidence suggests that Still had a volume ready for print in 1892. This evidence comes in the course of a brief note written in Still'southward indisputable handwriting. The intended receiver was "J.R.M.," in all likelihood the initials of Still's friend John Roy Musick,²² whom All the same credited as being the compiler of Philosophy of Osteopathy and Autobiography.²³ Although the notation was undated and the name of his book not provided, Still wrote, "June 92 will be the time for publication."²⁴

Jerry Dickey, DO, who was a friend of Nevertheless's chiliad-girl, was adamant that PMPO "was non published for x years,"^25(p135) suggesting that the book could take been written as early on as 1892. Some portions of PMPO are known to have been composed as early every bit 1898. For instance, a paragraph showtime with the words "WONDERS are daily callers, and seem to be profoundly on the increment..." was showtime published in 1898 in the Journal of Osteopathy.²⁶ That same paragraph was and so edited slightly for publication in 1899 for Philosophy of Osteopathy ^7(p193) and reedited again in 1902 for inclusion in PMPO.²⁸ Perhaps Still delayed publication of PMPO because he was not initially satisfied with the text or felt that it provided too much information to his competitors.²⁷

▪ Arguments Against 1892—A copyright search for PMPO was conducted at the Library of Congress in 2010 past Anthony J. Bogucki, senior copyright research specialist in the Records, Research, and Certification Section (A.J. Bogucki, written communication, April 2010). This search spanned the years 1870 through 1897, every bit a previous search, conducted in 1991, covered the years post-obit 1897.⁴ Bogucki confirmed that there was no record of whatever application for copyright under the name PMPO (or Andrew Taylor Still) during the searched period. Therefore, PMPO could non have been copyrighted in 1892.

▪ Arguments for 1902—Potent statements by 2 of Still's associates, Charles Hazzard, Do,²⁹ and C.Grand.T. Hulett, DO,^thirty favor the writing flow of PMPO beingness closer to 1902. 2 known existing typhoon versions of the preface to PMPO indicate that All the same may have started writing the preface equally early every bit January 1900. The start preface draft (Effigy 4) shows an editor's slash through the second 0 of 1900.³¹ An unbiased professional editor, Cindy Knowles, was shown the markings on this page and asked to comment on the slash. In her response, Knowles noted a variety of reasons why a proofreader or editor would use such a slash and so systematically eliminated each of those reasons in this item case (C. Knowles, written communication, May 2008). The editor ended, "I think information technology says 1901."

Figure 4.

Draft of preface of Nevertheless AT. In Taking Upward My Pen At My Historic period: The Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy, draft. 1900. Museum No. 2009.10.660. Andrew Taylor Still Papers. Museum of Osteopathic Medicine^SM, Kirksville, MO. Reprinted with the permission of Jason Haxton, MA, Director, Still National Osteopathic Museum.

The second typhoon version (Figure 5)³² appears to exist a reworked adaptation of the previous typhoon. In this second draft, the concluding digit of the January 1 date seems to be altered twice, once to 1902 and once again to 1903.³²

Figure 5.

Typhoon of preface of Yet AT. The Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy, draft. Date unknown. Museum No. 2009.x.555. Andrew Taylor Still Papers. Museum of Osteopathic Medicine^SM, Kirksville, MO. Reprinted with the permission of Jason Haxton, MA, Manager, Nonetheless National Osteopathic Museum.

In a 1901 article, However reported that he had compiled 2 books to date.²² These books must accept been Autobiography and Philosophy of Osteopathy, because their dates of publication accept been indisputably established as 1897³³ and 1899,³⁴ respectively.

Consecutive problems of the Journal of Osteopathy, in September,^35,36 October,³⁷ November,³⁸ and December 1902,³⁹ outlined the progress of the release of PMPO. Finally, the January 1903 edition of the Journal of Osteopathy announced that PMPO was "set for sale."^xl JAOA—The Periodical of the American Osteopathic Clan confirmed receiving its first copy of PMPO in February 1903.⁴¹

The almost convincing bear witness for a 1902 publication of PMPO comes from a copyright search conducted in 1991. That search revealed that an application for copyright of PMPO was made on Dec viii, 1902, and that the Library of Congress received 2 copies of PMPO on Jan 17, 1903.^4(p1)According to Peter M. Vankevich, head of the Copyright Data Section at the US Copyright Role in Washington, DC, this procedure met the requirements of the 1870 copyright law, and PMPO was registered with copyright number A7638 (P.M. Vankevich, written advice, April 2010). This finding substantiates the fact that PMPO was copyrighted in 1902.

▪ Reprint—The only reprint of PMPO came in 1986, when Osteopathic Enterprise—a company founded by a group of osteopathic physicians, including Jerry Dickey, DO—photographically reproduced the volume from a copy owned by Nevertheless's granddaughter, Mary Jane Denslow.^25(p136)

The 1986 reprint is the version that is readily bachelor today. It is identical in every respect to the original, except for the left front matter, which denotes Osteopathic Enterprise as the publisher.

▪ Determination—Some portions of PMPO were composed in 1898, and perhaps the entire book was fix for publication as early on as 1892. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests that PMPO was Withal'south third book, published and copyrighted in 1902. Thus, it is unnecessary to include the year 1892 when referencing the volume.

Fourth Book

Osteopathy Enquiry and Practice was Even so's 4th volume, published in 1910. The Library of Congress granted copyright in 1910 with number A265340.^4(p1) During the 20th century, many versions of Osteopathy Research and Practice, all with identical text but with varying numbers of pages and dissimilar designs, were released.^42-47

In 1992, Eastland Press released the virtually popular version of Osteopathy Enquiry and Practise, with the famous photograph of Still pondering the human being femur on the cover and the foreword written by Harold Goodman, Practice.⁴⁷ Considering of this book'due south multiple publications, care must be exercised when citing Osteopathy Inquiry and Practice.

Secondary Sources of Still'south Words

A troublesome reason for misquoting Yet arises from the popular apply of secondary sources of his words. This practice emerged in the mid-20th century, when accessing his published books had become increasingly difficult. As a result, 2 collections of quotations attributed to Still were published. George 5. Webster, DO, produced Sage Sayings of However: Selected from the Writings of Dr. A. T. Still, Founder of Osteopathy; With a Historical Sketch of Osteopathy and an Appreciation of Dr. Still in 1935,^one and Robert Due east. Truhlar, Exercise, was responsible for Doctor A. T. Still in the Living, His Concepts and Principles of Health and Illness, in 1950.^two

In Sage Sayings of Still, Webster arranged approximately 100 of Still's quotations alphabetically past subject. Although each quotation was referenced, Webster failed to indicate the editions of the books from which the quotations were extracted. Despite its age, Webster'due south book remains readily bachelor.

Doc A. T. Still in the Living contains in excess of m quotations, conveniently packaged alphabetically by the theme of the statement.² Unfortunately, none of the quotations in Truhlar'south book were referenced—not past title, year, edition, or page number. Other inherent problems with Truhlar's compilation are that some quotations were taken out of context, some were probable transcribed incorrectly, and others seem to have been intentionally altered.

An even more disturbing business is that some quotations in Truhlar's book were non from Still's writings. Rather, they were statements recalled past H.H. Gravett, Do,⁴⁸ from lectures given by Notwithstanding at the American School of Osteopathy in 1896. Gravett had published his recollections in 1948, and Truhlar incorrectly attributed these statements to Still.

Sample Misquotes

An inaccurate quotation and contradictory reference appears in affiliate 39 of the second edition of Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine.^49(p566) The sentence, found on page 566 of this volume, reads as follows (with quotation marks as in the original text): "To find health is the object of the physician; anyone can observe disease." The reference for this quotation is given every bit: Truhlar RE. Sage Sayings of A. T. Notwithstanding. Indianapolis, IN: American Academy of Osteopathy; 1994.^49(p572)

There are several problems with both this quotation and its accompanying reference. Webster is the author of Sage Sayings of Still, non Truhlar, and the actual title of Webster's volume does non include Still'southward initials.¹ The foregoing quotation does not announced in Sage Sayings of Withal, simply something like to it does appear in Truhlar's Doctor A. T. Still in the Living.^two Furthermore, according to Debra Loguda-Summers, curator of the Museum of Osteopathic Medicine^SM, "there is no 1994 reprint or edition of Truhlar, Robert; Dr. A. T. Still in the Living" (D. Loguda-Summers, written communication, May 2008).

Too the author, championship, and twelvemonth of publication beingness contradictory, the statement on folio 566 of Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine ^49(p566) has been altered from However'southward original quotation, which reads: "To notice health should exist the object of the medico. Anyone can discover disease." This exact quotation appears identically in Philosophy of Osteopathy,^7(p28) PMPO,^10(p72) and fifty-fifty in Truhlar.^2(p62)

By changing "should be" in the original sentence to "is," the statement's conditional nature is altered, making it announced as though to observe health is an accepted fact or doctrine within the osteopathic profession. Furthermore, modernizing "doctor" to "physician" has ramifications that affect the statement'due south original meaning.

The third edition of Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine also has some quoting and referencing problems. For example, the same "to find wellness" quotation appears in this book at to the lowest degree 3 times. In 1 instance, the statement is correctly quoted, simply the year of publication is missing from its corresponding reference.^l In some other instance, Truhlar is incorrectly quoted.⁵¹ In yet another example, the identical misquote that was found in the second edition on page 566 is used once more in the tertiary edition, but with no reference provided for this quotation.⁵²

An Cyberspace search conducted in 2010 using the Google search engine and the phrase anyone can find disease along with the word osteopathy revealed a startling number of variations on Still's original statement, including the following:

A doctor'southward job is to notice health, anyone can find disease.

It is the object of a physician to detect wellness, anyone tin observe affliction.

It is the objective of the doc to find wellness, anyone tin detect disease.

Anyone can observe disease. The function of a physician is to find wellness.

To observe health is the mission of the doctor—anyone tin notice illness.

To find health should be the object of the practitioner. Anyone can find disease.

Another misrepresented quote of Withal is found in affiliate 6, titled "Functional Anatomy 2: Horizontal Diaphragms," of an American University of Osteopathy publication.^53(p34) The misquote reads: "By information technology'southward (diaphragms) action we live, and by it'due south failure we shrink, or swell and die." The correct reference for this quotation (Philosophy of Osteopathy, page 164) was provided, but However's original sentence reads: "By its action we live, and by its failure nosotros shrink, or swell, and die."^7(p164)

Annotation that the correct quote contains the possessive pronoun its, and the altered version uses it's, which is a wrinkle for information technology is or information technology has. A comma subsequently the word not bad has also been omitted, altering the meaning of the argument.

The standard practice of inserting a bracketed discussion, in this case diaphragms, within a quote to bespeak the subject of a sentence when it may be unclear inside the original quote was used appropriately. However, the inserted word diaphragms was incorrect, because this argument is derived from Still'south chapter on fascia and was referring to the fascia'south activity, non to the diaphragm'south activeness.^7(p164)A sentence similar to both Withal'due south fascial statement and the altered version of the quote is found in Philosophy of Osteopathy on page 136, in the chapter on the thoracic diaphragm.^vii(p136) This judgement reads as follows (the quotation marks are shown as used by Even so):

This diaphragm says: "Past me you live and by me yous die. I agree in my hand the powers of life and expiry, acquaint now thyself with me and exist at ease."

Thus, the author in the American Academy of Osteopathy publication⁵³ not simply quoted However's words inaccurately just has made the original judgement grammatically incorrect—going every bit far as providing a misrepresentation of the original bailiwick matter.

Bookish Review

According to the tenth edition of the AMA Manual of Mode, section iii.6, a book is referenced by its copyright year.^54(p42) Using AMA formatting, the original version of PMPO should be referenced as follows:

Withal AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Kansas Urban center, MO: Hudson-Kimberly Pub Co; 1902.

The 1986 reprint should exist referenced as follows:

Still AT. The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy. Reprinted, Kirksville, MO: Osteopathic Enterprise; 1986. Originally published, Kansas City, MO: Hudson-Kimberly Pub Co; 1902.

The solution for ensuring academic rigor in quoting All the same is to transcribe his words exactly as originally recorded. The AMA Transmission of Way states: "[t]he author should always verify the quotation from the original source," and "[i]n all quoted cloth, follow the wording, spelling, and punctuation of the original exactly."^54(p359) The only exception to the latter rule is when a quoted sentence begins with a capital alphabetic character in the original source and is used within another consummate sentence in the secondary source. In that case, the capitalized letter may be replaced with a lowercase letter enclosed in brackets, as illustrated in the second sentence of the nowadays paragraph.

The AMA Manual of Fashion also states "[b]rackets are used to indicate editorial interpolation within a quotation and to enclose corrections, explanations, or comments,"^54(p357) and to use [sic] sparingly "when quoting material from another era that at present uses obsolete spellings."^54(p359)

Conclusion

When Yet's quotations are used to support mod ideas in osteopathic medicine (as well every bit in osteopathy in general), there should exist absolute adherence to their original form. Yet'due south right to exist accurately quoted should parallel the accepted standards of practice throughout academia. The inaccessibility of Still's books is at present completely remedied. His writings are available worldwide, and the correct dates of copyright and publication have been firmly established. Secondary collections of Still's works, such as those past Webster¹ and Truhlar,² which had value when Yet's books were difficult to obtain, have at present been shown to be unreliable and redundant.

Each author, educator, and educatee has not just the ability, merely the obligation, to faithfully cite and reference A.T. Still—and indeed all of the early osteopathic literature. Failure to maintain the highest standards of competency, integrity, and accuracy in quoting from the written historical works of this great profession may lead to a loss of heritage and reputation.

This work is licensed nether the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

smithpurry1980.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.2012.112.6.366/html