The Spahlinger Method of Treatment of Tuberculosis

NZMJ, 1924

In response to the request of the Prime Minister of New Zealand a Committee of the New Zealand Branch of the British Medical Association has reported to the New Zealand Government on the medical aspect of the Spahlinger treatment. The committee was constituted as follows:—Sir Donald McGavin (Chairman), Prof. Hercus, Prof. Fitchett and Drs. Hector, Fenwick, Short and Macintyre. With the exception of one member, who saw this treatment in Geneva and had a slight opportunity of applying it in New Zealand, none of the committee has had the opportunity of seeing the treatment carried out, and as no material is available in New Zealand they have not been able to test its results themselves. The committee is, therefore, compelled to form a judgment from evidence reported, and not as it would desire, from a direct observation of the treatment and its results. This involves a necessarily guarded and provisional judgment, a careful consideration of the value and credibility of the evidence, and a consideration of the position of those offering the evidence. The report of the committee relates to clinical and bacteriological evidence and conclusions, and covers sixteen foolscap pages of typewritten matter.

“The conclusion of the Committee, after most careful deliberations, is that the evidence available is insufficient to support the claims made for this treatment. An editorial article in the British Medical Journal, of 2nd June, 1923, summed up as follows:— ‘It is of course possible that the elaborate and complex methods which M. Spahlinger employs may possess advantages, but there is no laboratory evidence that they are any better than what has been done before, and the only evidence there is rests on the observations of some clinical observers who have been favourably impressed by the results which they are obtaining.’ This statement accurately represents the views of the committee.

“The committee feels that before the Government takes any decided action, further information should be obtained. It is understood that Dr. G. J. Blackmore (a recognised authority on tuberculosis in New Zealand), is at present in England, and will shortly visit Geneva. His opinion as to the efficacy of this treatment would be of great value, and the committee recommends the Government to secure a report from Dr. Blackmore as soon as possible.

“The Ministry of Health in London has the best opportunity of following the development of this treatment and judging of its efficiency. The committee, therefore, considers that the New Zealand Government might properly support the Ministry of Health in its further investigations into the efficiency or otherwise of this treatment.

“The committee, however, considers that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify its recommending the New Zealand Government to take independent action. This view coincides with the recommendation of the Director-General of Health to the Hon. the Minister of Health, in December, 1922.

“The committee desire to express their appreciation of the labour undertaken by the Hon. Dr. Collins in collecting the mass of evidence which he placed before them, and for the courtesy he exhibited in discussing the whole question with them.”