The established practice of giving different names to similar conditions, simply because they are located in different parts of the body, is very short-sighted and leads to treating the affected organ or tissue as though it is an isolated entity lacking vital or intimate connection with all other parts of the body. The supposition that the organic location of an affection makes a difference in its essential nature or character is not based on sound science. Disease of the eye, stomach, heart, lung, and bowels are not different diseases, but disease in different places.

The suffix "itis", denotes inflammation. When added to the end of the name of an organ or part this denotes inflammation of an organ or part, as tonsillitis, inflammation of the tonsil; myocarditis, inflammation of the heart; pleuritis, inflammation of the pleura; phrenitis, inflammation of the brain; iritis, inflammation of the eye; metritis, inflammation of the womb; cystitis, inflammation of the bladder; inenengitis, inflammation of the menenges of the brain and cord; hepatitis, inflammation of the liver; pancreatitis, inflammation of the pancreas; nephritis, inflammation of the kidney; etc.

Thus many forms of disease, having different names, and, therefore, spoken of as different diseases, are indeed but one disease. Thus pleuritis, enteritis, pericarditis, synovitis, phrenitis, menengitis, etc., while they are said to be so many different diseases, are merely words to designate inflammation of a serous membrane. A different name is imposed on each, in order to indicate which of all the serous membranes of the body is inflamed--the inflammation itself being precisely the same in all and depending upon the same cause.

We see the same thing in inflammation of the mucous membranes. Thus, we have rhinitis, tonsillitis, stomatitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, bronchitis, oesophagitis, gastritis, duodenitis, colitis, proctitis, endometritis, etc., which are only words to designate which mucous membrane is the seat of inflammation--the inflammation itself being precisely the same in all and depending upon the same cause.

Carrying this still further, great stress is laid on minute points of pathology so that every quarter of an inch of anatomy calls for a different pathological symbol. To designate these differences in the location of points of greatest apparent deviation from the healthy standard, such terms are employed as cellulitis, parametritis, endometritis, endocervicitis, ovaritis, salpmgitis, anterior and posterior cervicitis, myocarditis, endocarditis, cystitis, urethritis, etc.

Start with the nose and go down the respiratory tract, or begin with the mouth and descend the digestive tract, touching only the high spots and what do we find? In the first case, rhinitis, sinusitis, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, laryngitis, tracheitis, bronchitis, etc.; in the second case, stomatitis, oesophagitis, gastritis, duodenitis, enteritis, colitis, proctitis, etc. A similar fact is seen in the eyes, ears, genito-urinary tracts, etc. Thus, we have anterior and posterior cervicitis, metritis affecting the fundus and lateral divisions of the uterus, cellulitis, ovaritis, salpingitis, etc.

All of the above named "diseases" are catarrhal conditions--"local catarrh." These names only designate the locale of the catarrh, every quarter of an inch of anatomy receiving special consideration in naming what is obviously the same thing.

Catarrhal inflammation of the bile ducts receives one name, (cholecystitis), while catarrhal inflammation of the gall bladder receives another, (cholangitis). These "two diseases" are obviously only one condition in two locations. Regarding them as different diseases is like regarding dirt on the parlor floor as a different diseases to dirt on the bedroom floor. Catarrh of the gall bladder or bile-ducts follows catarrh of the stomach and intestine and is but an extension of this. It is but a part of gastro-intestinal catarrh, and results from the same causes. The catarrhs are not different diseases, but the same condition manifested in different locations. When this fact is once fully realized the problems of disease are greatly simplified.

While these unimportant distinctions serve to show the painstaking and searching nature of modern enquiries, they prove damaging in the extreme when they are allowed to narrow the limits of the practitioner's care of his patient.

If inflammation has' been greatly divided, fever has been hardly less so. The terms "fever" and "febrile disorders" are "applied to certain diseases in which high temperature is a prominent symptom." By forms of fever are meant the different appearances presented by the "fever patient", as bilious fever, spotted fever, dengue fever, scarlet fever ;or the location in which the patient lives, as malta fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever; or the place the patient developed the fever, as ship fever, jail fever; or the cause of the fever as ardent fever (heat stroke) ; or the time of year, as Autumnal fever, (typhoid). We have brain fever, lung fever, gastric fever, etc.

What matters the name, or color, or type of the "disease"--whether it is simple or complicated, bilious, yellow, scarlet, spotted--so long as we know that it is a struggle of the organism to throw off offenses and repair damages, and not an effort to commit suicide!

Fever and inflammation are pathological chamelions, or else they are legion in number. The supposition that the organic locality of an affection makes a difference in its essential nature or character is not tenable in the light of facts, so that we are compelled to recognize the essential unity of these things.

The doctrines of fever and inflammation may never have overlapped in theory, but they overlapped, at least, in the naming of . so-called diseases. Thus, pneumonia and lung fever; meningitis and spotted fever ; enteritis and typhoid fever; acute inflammation of the brain, encephalitis, and brain fever; puerperal peritonitis and puerperal fever, were respectively synonymous, or different names for identical affections.

There is no distinction in nature between "inflammations", and "fevers" and we but deceive ourselves by making two things out of one simple physiological act. Excitement (irritation), inflammation, and fever are not disease at all, but simple efforts of the body to remove offending agents and repair damages.

All attempts to establish dividing lines between the so-called diseases have met with no success. Such is the unity of pathological phenomena ; such is the unity of the body; such, indeed, is the unity of the universe, that such efforts can but fail in the future as in The past.

It is quite true that the whole structure of science follows the principles of division and classification, but these divisions are not so much realities of pathology as devices to overcome the limitations of the human mind.