Le procès de Mélanie Hahnemann en 1847 à Paris. Exercice illégal de la pharmacie et de la médecine

Fiche du document

Date

2002

Discipline
Type de document
Périmètre
Langue
Identifiant
Collection

Persée

Organisation

MESR

Licence

Copyright PERSEE 2003-2023. Works reproduced on the PERSEE website are protected by the general rules of the Code of Intellectual Property. For strictly private, scientific or teaching purposes excluding all commercial use, reproduction and communication to the public of this document is permitted on condition that its origin and copyright are clearly mentionned.




Citer ce document

Francis Trépardoux, « Le procès de Mélanie Hahnemann en 1847 à Paris. Exercice illégal de la pharmacie et de la médecine », Revue d'Histoire de la Pharmacie, ID : 10.3406/pharm.2002.5398


Métriques


Partage / Export

Résumé En Fr

Prosecution of Mélanie Hahnemann in 1847 at the court of Paris : illegal practise of pharmacy and medicine Recently married, the Hahnemanns came to Paris in 1835. The great man, 80, was authorised to practise in France. His wife Mélanie always assisted him in writing prescriptions, and in recruiting patients. When he died in 1843, she was continuing to practise assisted or not by a physician, Deleau or Croserio. A young pharmacist, Charles LeThière, lived close to her as her adoptive son, grandson of the famous painter Guillaume Guillon-LeThière who was the director of the french academy of fine arts in Rome at the Villa Medici, grandson as well of the roman pharmacist Giuseppe Meli. Early Charles remained orphan and was educated by Mélanie. In 1844, he obtained his pharmaceutical graduation at the École supérieure de Pharmacie de Paris. In 1847, she was accused of illegal practising of medicine and pharmacy. She claimed that she held the degree of doctor in homeopathy granted to her by the academy of Pensylvenia. The court condemned her on the medical side considering that she earned money without legal certification in medicine. But as the drugs were prepared by a pharmacist, and delivered free of charge to the patients, no sentence was pronounced against her neither against LeThière. However, the court tempted to object that LeThière did not meet all the legal requirements for practising his pharmaceutical activity, especially arguing that he did not own an open shop of pharmacy, and that he did not declare his activity to the authorities in Paris. This point underline the fact that during the XIXth century the french law (21 germinal An XI- 1803), obliged the starting drug industry to be in dependence of the shops of pharmacy opened to the public, owned by a graduated pharmacist. As defender Mrs Hahnemann chose the quite known solicitor Chaix d'Estange. Many testimonies came for justifying her capability of medical prescribing from artists, officers, writers and several aristocrats. From abroad came the supports of american doctors, Hempel, Hering and Hull. But the core question motivating her sentence came from the medical lobby acting in Paris led by the professor Orfila. Among the adepts of the homeopathy themselves, raised division and rivalry, but all considering that Mélanie Hahnemann's behaviour was criticable. The court fined her for hundred francs that she paid. Then, she kept the circle of her friends and continued in medical counselling.

Après le décès de son époux, Mme Hahnemann perpétua sa pratique médicale avec son titre de Docteur en homéopathie. Dénoncée par la Faculté en 1847, elle comparut devant le tribunal correctionnel de Paris, prévenue d'exercice illégal de la pharmacie et de la médecine. Elle fut condamnée. Au cours de ses consultations, elle remettait gratuitement des médicaments préparés par un pharmacien diplômé, Charles LeThière. À celui-ci, on reprocha de ne pas posséder d'officine ouverte, et de ne pas avoir déclaré son activité à la préfecture de Police. Il fut relaxé. Né à Rome, il était le petit-fils du peintre Guillon-LeThière directeur de la Villa Médicis, ami de Ingres. Des liens affectifs durables unissaient sa famille à Mélanie Hahnemann. Cette affaire retentissante illustre le vif antagonisme existant à l'égard des praticiens homéopathes des deux professions entre 1830 et 1850.

document thumbnail

Par les mêmes auteurs

Sur les mêmes sujets

Sur les mêmes disciplines

Exporter en