Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors]

him of the more effective and therefore the more dangerous potencies.

Beware of such an one! He will harm his patients and he will be a menace to his school.

The question, therefore, to be discussed if any benefit is to be derived from the discussion, is not as to the general use of the high or low potencies, but when and under what circumstances each may be used with curative results and the why and the wherefore for such use of each. Take, for instance, a case of poisoning from the sting of the common honey bee. We know that carbolic acid is the nearest similia to the crude apis poisoning. If, therefore, we were to treat the case immediately upon the injection of the poison while only the crude or more external symptoms were present, we should give carbolic acid, not high, but upon a plane similar to that of the poison which is taking effect, thus making a prescription homeopathic both as to remedy and as to potency.

But, if the patient should be so very susceptible to the poison that its action should, in a few moments or in a few days, effect not only the more external of the body, but the very essence of the life force itself, as sometimes happens, then the low potency of carbolic acid would not only be unhomeopathic as to potency but in many cases unhomeopathic as to remedy, in either case with a strong tendency to do harm rather than good.

Here two questions naturally arise: First, why should a remedy indicated on one day be unhomeopathic on the next when the condition during both days is caused by the same agent?

The answer to this is simple: In all cases where the poison has any effect, immediately upon its injection the symptoms of stinging and redness followed by swelling and the white spot are present. These four symptoms are typical of the carbolic acid burn and, therefore, their totality points to carbolic acid alone. But after the whole system, the more internal, the essence of the vital force itself has been attacked, to the symptoms produced by the poison each individual gives his own peculiar characteristics, therefore each case will differ in some regard and the totality of these symptoms may not point to carbolic acid but to almost any other remedy in the materia medica.

Second-Why should a remedy which is clearly indicated act for harm if given in a low potency, and what is the meaning of a homeopathic potency?

The answer to this should be equally simple to comprehend, yet it is the stumbling block which causes many failures to cure on the part of some very excellent prescribers, notwithstanding the clear explanation which Hohnemann has given in the Or. ganon.

As there is neither space nor necessity for a discussion of the vital force we will accept Hahnemann's statement that it exists upon every plane from the highest, invisible, untangible, best demonstrated by the plane of thought, to the visible, tangabler, more material plane as demonstrated by the more external of the body.

The lack of harmony between the vital force and the more material body (disease) may exist upon any plane and the potency to be curative to the whole disease must be upon the same or a higher plane since the curative action is always from above, downward; from within, outward, and from the internal to the external.

Therefore, if the ptoency given shall be upon a plane lower or more external than is the disease, the curative action will effect only the more external conditions, leaving the disease upon the higher plane still active.

From this will result one of two conditions. Either the more external symptoms will be removed or so changed that the case will be wholly masked and a further homeouathic prescription made more difficult or, by a continual repetition of the low potency a drug disease will be established which may in time become incurable.

In this latter case the drug disease is so similar to the original diseased condition that the practitioner fails to realize his fault and sees only an aggravation or increase in the original serious state, persuading himself either that this particular case is incurable or that "there is nothing in homeopathy."

Nevertheless and notwithstanding these facts, he who confines his practice to the use of the low potencies, provided he prescribes upon the homeopathic principles, should not be condemned, for while there are some curable diseases which he can

not cure; while there are other curable cases which he makes incurable, after all he does better work than any man in any other school has ever done. He saves the majority of his patients from lifelong misery or an early death; by curing many diseases today he saves much suffering to future generations. He does good work. Not the best that could be done, to be sure, but still good work, and there is always the probability of his advancing toward the ideal.

We regret his inability to grasp the greater truths of the homeopathic law. We may very justly, and we do censure him for his expressed antagonism to those whose advanced thought leads them along roads upon which he cannot travel, but we should and we do remember that he is further advanced than is any practitioner in any other school, and should receive due credit for what he does.

We, however, have a right to expect a like consideration from him in place of the bitter contempt and ridicule meted out to us in every assembly of our school and the day when we shall receive it is not far distant.

Yet, meantime, we would assure him that we have no criticism to offer upon his use of any potency, provided he prescribes it upon the principles as taught by Hahnemann.

RALPH D. P. BROWN, M. D.

The North American Journal of Homeopathy has a staff correspondent in Denver who deplores the fact that eastern Homeopaths fail to recommend their patients to some practitioner of their faith residing in Colorado when sending patients to this climate for treatment, in consequence of which oversight "these frequently fall into the hands of some of our many gentlemanly and well-educated 'old school' doctors, are treated nicely, etc., etc." As a remedy for such regrettable results of a lack of knowledge to advise intelligently the Journal, for a consideration, of course, proposes to publish your name in a directory that all who run, or remain stationary, may read. We believe the directory is a good idea and hope our homeopathic doctors will take advantage of it. We notice one good name in the list already, Dr. Faust of Colorado Springs.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN?

Dorland says that a physician is "an authorized practitioner of medicine." A homeopathic physician would then be an authorized practitioner of homeopathic medicine. A practitioner is one who practices; not one who believes. A man who says he believes in homeopathy and practices otherwise is just as much worthy of belief as the man who says he believes in the doctrine of the Methodist Church and then contributes to the support of and lives the life of a member of the Romish Church. One would doubt the saneness of him who claimed to be both Protestant and Roman Catholic, but there is no doubt of the sanity of many claiming to practice both homeopathy and allopathy. He is a wise man who keeps his hand on his watch and pocketbook when in the presence of one of this character-for men who have more love for the almighty dollar than they have for truth and honesty are the kind of people that steal pennies off dead men's eyes.

It would be no more right or sensible to apply the term "homeopathic physician" to many having diplomas from a college called homeopathic, than it would be to call a wooden bedstead iron because it had been painted to represent iron. A man may graduate from a homeopathic college, may belong to all the homeopathic societies in his section of the country, may carry a case purchased at a homeopathic pharmacy and filled with remedies prepared according to a homeopathic pharmacopeia and may give these remedies in small and infrequent doses and have a license authorizing him to practice medicine, even homeopathic medicine, and still be as rank a fraud as a wooden nutmeg.

What is homeopathy? Professor Burr says: "Homeopathy is a system of medicine based on a fundamental law of cure, 'similia similibus curantur.' It ascertains the effect of drugs by provings on healthy persons. In the treatment of diseases it advocates the use of the single remedy given in the smallest dose that will cure." The man whose habit of practice conforms to that statement is certainly entitled to be called a homeopathic physician. The fact that he might occasionally stray from the strict path of rectitude and prescribe a remedy empirically, antipathically or allopathically, should not deprive him of the right to the name homeopathist, unless he strayed away so often that it would be impossible to properly classify him. The man whose method of treatment conforms to no known school of prac

tice or who uses homeopathically prescribed remedies where the case is so plain that he cannot fail or occasionally accidentally prescribes homeopathically is not morally entitled to call himself a homeopathic physician, and for him to do so places himself among the other fakirs. I maintain that the truth of this statement applies more decidedly to a graduate of a homeopathic college than to any others. The legal right and the moral right ought to go together. If they did you would not hear students saying that in a year's work of a clinician in a certain college that the only homeopathic prescription that he made was due to an accident.

We remember seeing, many years ago, a carpenter saw a piece of timber six times before he could make it fit into its place in the frame of the house. This man had worked for years at the carpenter's trade and there are many houses in that neighborhood that he helped to build. He understood his trade thoroughly, but his judgment and eyesight were poor. We were reminded of this man when we read Professor Burr's answer to the question: "How do most homeopathic physicians look upon the question of alternating remedies?" The answer was: “As not good practice; as a virtual acknowledgement on the part of those who do that they are not familiar with the homeopathic materia medica."

In looking for something better than what we ourselves could say in regard to the basic principles of homeopathy and for something in greater detail than that which we have just quoted from Professor Burr, we found that the professor had summed up Boericke's Compendium in six principles and then had added one (No. 7) that was very important and had been overlooked by Boericke. The fundamentals of homeopathy are as follows:

"1. The totality of the symptoms of the patient constitute the disease for the purpose of a cure.

"2. Drug experimentation on the healthy, so-called 'drug proving,' is the only reliable method to arrive at the knowledge of the effects of drugs.

"3. The curative relation between these two sets of symptomatic facts is the law of similars—similia similibus curantur.' "4. The administration of one single remedy at a time. "5. The minimum (smallest) dose that will bring about a

cure.

"6. Repetition of the dose should cease when marked improvement sets in.

"7. That the powers of drugs are greatly increased by means of trituration and attenuation according to the homeopathic plan."

1

« AnteriorContinuar »