Historic Libel Action won by Homeopathic Doctor

[Dana Ullman, MPH]

Dear Friends,

If ANYONE (!) who has some interest in homeopathy is not familiar with
SUE YOUNG, you should be. Sue has written hundreds of short biographies of
homeopaths and their famous patients, and her research is absolutely
fascinating.

You can read her writings at: http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/

You will also discover that the skeptics of homeopathy do all they can
to ignore her impressive body of work.
She also has uncovered many amazing stories from history, including
the one below. When you click on the link below, you will not only be able
to read this article, but ALL of the facts in the article are directly
linked to their original source! Ya gotta love that...
http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/h ... oric-libel
-action-of-homeopath-vs-doctor

Historic Libel Action won by Homeopathic Doctor
Tuesday, 26 January 2010 22:51 |
by Sue Young
This case of John Ozanne is quite interesting, as this should still be on
the Law statutes:

In 1849, John Ozanne took out a libel action against Dr Lisle (full
description of the case in John Ozanne's blog). He was involved in a dispute
with Dr. De Beauviour de Lisle, an allopathic physician, who abused him
verbally because he was a homeopath in front of his patient.

The Jury at Guernsey Royal Court lost no time in upholding John Ozanne’s
defence and in fining the prejudiced Mr Lisle £35 10 shillings plus costs,
and damages of 5 shillings to John Ozanne and 2shillings and 6 pence to the
Queen. John Forbes and William Henderson of the University of Edinburgh came
to give evidence for John Ozanne’s defence.

The Queen’s Comptroller explained that the Law presumed malice when the
words used were insulting. As John Ozanne was not claiming financial
damages, he was claiming reparation for the insult offered to him. The words
spoken were injurious, and they were spoken without provocation.

The merits of homeopathy had nothing to do with the case, and the assertion
that homeopathy was condenmed by the allopaths was ‘no defense whatsoever’.

The Queen’s Comptroller was surprised that:

‘The practitioners of medicine, above all men, ought to hesitate in
pronouncing positive opinions on the science they professed. That science
was, more than any other, undefined in its principles......

The Queen’s Comptroller condemned the allopathic witnesses who condemned
without authority, study or in most cases, knowledge of homeopathy, and when
pressed most of them did not even know what homeopathy was. Their opinons
therefore, were worthless.

The articles and publications read before the court defaming homeopathy were
‘a mass of scurrilous expressions of party feeling which was entitled to no
attention‘.

The authorities who were better informed on this subject, such as the
celebrated John Forbes, admitted that it was ‘but simple justice to admit
that Hahnemann was a man of profound learning and perfect integrity, and
that many of his disciples were sincere, honest and learned men‘.

The Baliff declared that the words charged in the action had been proved.
Had De Lisle confined himself to claiming that homeopathy was quackery and
not applied those terms to John Ozanne, and that using this Court case to
defame homeopathy was not applicable. De Lisle used his words to defame John
Ozanne, which were not justified.
Cool, eh?!

Bless SUE YOUNG!
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
www.homeopathic.com