I observe the physician with the same diligence as the disease.
In the patient who succumbed, the cause of death was evidently something which was not found in the patient who recovered; this something we must determine, and then we can act on the phenomena or recognize and foresee them accurately. But not by statistics shall we succeed in this; never have statistics taught anything, and never can they teach anything about the nature of the phenomenon.
I was labeled 'P-E-A,' which is patient expired on arrival. I guess that's the politically correct way of saying you didn't make it.
It is much more important to know what sort of a patient has a disease than what sort of a disease a patient has.
It is said, proverbially, that happy is the doctor who is called in when the disease is on its way out.
An operation that eventually kills may be technically successful, and the man may die cured; and so a description of religion thatshowed it to be madness might first show how real and warm it was, so that if it perished, at least it would perish understood.
You treat a disease, you win, you lose. You treat a person, I guarantee you, you'll win, no matter what the outcome.
