Should doctors be the judges of medical orthodoxy? The Barker case of 1920

Abstract

The continuing rise of complementary medicine, with a sympathetic report from the House of Lords1, provides an incentive for revisiting an incident in the early twentieth century when the issues of empirical and orthodox medical treatment exploded into the public arena. Empirical treatment was represented by Mr Herbert Barker, a bonesetter, and the extent to which his activities had penetrated to the core of public life is illustrated by the transcript of the discussion of the Parliamentary Standing Committee dealing with the Dentists Bill in June 19212. Colonel Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme), who throughout the discussion was vocal in defence of liberty, pointed out that the Bill as it stood made dentists different from doctors, for they would not be permitted to practise even without fee or reward unless registered. He said: ‘We know that in the case of the medical profession, men like Barker, the bone-setter, can continue to practise without being fined, so long as they have no legal right to claim payment of fees. I believe Barker does bone-setting rather better than some of the registered practitioners. Does this mean that if a Barker springs up in the dental profession and cures people of the tooth-ache without the usual paraphernalia of pincers, and so forth, he will be fined £100, or will he be able to practise as long as he has not the legal right to recover fees? In other words, are you making a distinction between the dental profession and the medical profession?’ In reply Sir Kingsley Wood (Woolwich, West), said, ‘Future practitioners must comply with the regulations and examinations of the Board, but I hope that if a Barker does arise he will be just as successful with the Dental Association as he has been in the medical world.’ So who was Barker, and just how successful was he with the medical world? The account that follows of the extraordinary events that surrounded Herbert Atkinson Barker (Figure 1) in 1920 and 1921, and which led to his name being so familiar that he could be used as the stereotype empiricist, is gleaned mainly from a press cuttings file at Lambeth Palace (Davidson Papers Vol. 404) and from Barker's autobiography3. Figure 1 Herbert Atkinson Barker. Augustus John. 1916 [By courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London]