Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the supposition for the reason that not a few announce themselves on their signs, printing, etc., as homeopaths and make use of a special knowledge of a certain kind of therapeutics known as homeopathic.

Now, Homeopathy means the treatment of disease according to the law of Similia Similibus Curantur, or Curentur if you will. The source from which this system emanated declares that it is the only way to treat diseases and is capable of curing all curable complaints. The definition explicitly says that we add a special knowledge of such therapeutics to our knowledge of medicine. I take it that the reason we add this special knowledge is because there is none better. We confess several other systems of therapeutics exist, but we take especial pains to add this special knowledge, and by this addition are known as homeopathic physicians. We rather like the definition. We are pleased that the American Institute of Homeopathy has adopted the formula so unanimously. We have from it a declaration that its members possess the special knowledge, use the special knowledge, and are therefore to be known as homeopathic physicians. We are pleased because it has removed from our minds a suspicion that the homeopathic remedy was largely discredited. Traveling salesmen for various manufacturing pharmaceutists have assured us that they place large quantities of their wares with homeopaths, who make constant use of them. Our own Simon-pure pharmacies have on sale much that can hardly be classed as homeopathic therapeutics, in fact, it is not claimed that they are homeopathic remedies, yet they are in stock and are sold to homeopathic physicians. The demand is for them and it is supplied. All this will be changed now. The special

knowledge of Homeopathic Therapeutics which we and the institute publicly declare we have added to our knowledge of medicine will render the use of any other unnecessary, therefore, we are entitled to be called homeopathic physicians.

There is one obscure thing in the definition. What is meant by medicine as separate and apart from Homeopathic Therapeutics? I judge it, medicine is something different from homeopathic therapeutics, for the reason that it is one thing that is to be added to another. Does medicine include allopathy, eclecticism, hydropathy, isopathy, serum therapy inoculations, and what not? Is it a knowledge of these things to which a special knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics is added in order to be a homeopathic physician? It cannot mean surgery or obstetrics. They are mechanical proceedings and are distinctively classified. Medicine does not mean cutting or mechanical force, it means the internal use of drugs for physiological or dynamic purposes. We must conclude, therefore, that medicine means. the administration of drugs according to any forceful notion, to a knowledge of which a special knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics is to be added in order to be a homeopathic physician. If I interpret this meaning right, and I stand ready to be corrected and forgiven for error, then I fear Dr. Porter has unwittingly read many of us out of church, snatched our keel from under us and torn our sails to tatters. For the rest of you I will not make bold to speak, but for myself I am compelled to say (my interpretation being correct) that I am not a homeopathic physician within the meaning of the definition. I did not take a course in an allopathic college and cannot therefore claim a knowledge

of that medicine, nor was it taught in the college from which I graduated. I never attended an electic college, nor have I acquired a familiarity with hydropathy, serum therapy, Kochism, isopathy, and what not, sufficient to affirm that I have a knowledge of either. None of these isms were taught in the college from which I graduated, but homeopathic therapeutics were taught from every chair, and I was graduated as a homeopathic physician and hold a diploma bearing the legend, "Collegii Medici Hahnemanianii," a skin I hug because acquired by the hide of my teeth. I therefore have no knowledge, at least not sufficient knowledge-of medicine to which I may add the special knowledge ("heaven save the mark") of homeopathic therapeutics, to declare myself a homeopathic physician. Then where and what in the thunder am I? Has

Doctor Porter or any other graduate from a so-called Homeopathic College, a knowledge of medicine to which he has added an especial knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics, sufficient to enable. him to intelligently decide when medicine is to be used instead of homeopathic therapeutics, if so, then we will grant they are homeopathic physicians within the meaning and scope of the definition.

Now, what does that claim mean? A knowledge of medicine, or therapeutic appliances outside the homeopathic, means acquaintance with the use of every new-fangled, old-fangled, damnfanangled thing that is cast upon us by the representatives, and by us cast, mostly, into the waste basket. By the rule of evidence upon which their recommendation is based, we are bound to use them because they have cured, at least voluminous literature written by men who practice medicine, without a specialty to the side, says so. To keep pace with that

march of progress, know how to juggle the lightning changes of such a continuous performance may be within the capabilities of the men defined, but I'm

not in it.

But that's only half the knowledge necessary to be a homeopathic physician. Then comes that stupendous mass of which we talk so much, know so little, and credit less. Twelve large volumes record the positive effects of drugs upon the human organism. Thousands upon thousands of symptoms, no two exactly alike in every particular, stand there easy of access, comprehensive and comprehensible; a working knowledge of that mass, from general to particular, from similarity to differentiation, is what constitutes a special knowledge of Homeopathic Therapeutics. Who can boast of that knowledge in its entirety? Did the man who originated that definition realize the depth and breadth of accomplishment implied, and if he did, does he possess it? I'm willing to admit that he knows everything in the Homeopathic Materia Medica, at the same time I must marvel that-knowing it-he should still find it necessary to hook it in with a blind, deaf, spavined, maugy beast that kicks over the traces every time he is hitched.

Much stress is laid upon the right by tradition and inheritance to all that pertains to medicine. Well, no one will dispute that, but must a man, to practice the precepts of the golden rule, have a knowledge of total depravity and infant

damnation in order to succeed?

A few weeks ago I saw a child whose physician-(a man who had a knowledge of medicine to which he did not add a special knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics) had declared was suffering from scarlet fever; a red sign upon the house also proclaimed as much. A cul

ture was, however, made of the throat, whereupon the Board of Health declared it was a case of diphtheria and not scarlet fever. The treatment was simplified. Antitoxine to the amount of eighteen bottles was injected into that six year old child's back. Abscesses and ulcerations resulted. Strychnia 1-60 of a grain per dose was poured down the struggling child's throat every few hours. Every breath the child took was heavily laden with the fumes of carbolic acid that had been sprinkled about the room as a flank movement on the demnition bacilli that were working havoc within. The direct attack of toxine and strychnia was reinforced by quinine and digestive tablets, besides stimulants, peptonoids, etc. When I saw her, although but semi-conscious, she immediately became restless, fearful, refused to take anything from a spoon, spitting my tasteless medicines out of her mouth and shrinking from me, because she was afraid that I too was going to give her medicine. The child died.

Does any sane man want to associate a knowledge of such total depravity and infant damnation with the golden rule of homeopathic therapeutics? Does any man want to bedraggle the skirts of homeopathic therapeutic purity in the slums of such prostitution in order to be a homeopathic physician? Who wants to claim a natural right to it, much less inherit such rot, and who would not scorn a tradition that had for its basis a conglomeration so gloriously unscientific or unnatural?

I have nowhere seen given a good reason for perpetrating this definition. The school was not degenerating numerically, the educational standing of its confessed adherents was not deteriorating, nor is it presumed that the promulgation will change in the least the prac

tical bent of any of its followers. A man who wants to combine medicine and homeopathic therapeutics will do it, if he wants to play medicine today and his specialty tomorrow, he will continue the game, and still pose as a homeopath, although he be Jekyl now and Hyde then. Much in approval of the definition has appeared in the North American Journal of Homeopathy, yet any one taking the time to wade through that correspondence will see there is much objection too. Cowperthwaite defines a homeopathic physician as one who has a knowledge of and a belief in, the principles of Homeopathy, and who practices his profession in accordance with that knowledge and belief. He also says no one should question the right of every physician to employ palliative physiological, mechanical or surgical means where the exigencies of the case demand, but when a physician allows these measures to become the rule of his practice rather than the exception and who rarely employs homeopathic measures, he has no right to the title of Homeopathic physician, even though he may be a graduate of a homeopathic college.

Now, that's pretty stiff language, and were it inevitable law-the combination tablet, the mild laxative, the soothing salve makers would drop dead. Deschere says: "One who practices strictly in accord with homeopathic therapeutics is a homeopathic physician." The only physician in Pittsburg called upon to express an opinion-Dr. J. H. McClelland-has this to say: "While it is true that Homeopathic practitioners have every right to make use of every means successfully employed against disease, they, nevertheless, should not lightly value the incomparable system of therapeutics based on the famous generaliza

[merged small][ocr errors]

The inference to be drawn from either of these statements is, that there are homeopathic physicians who do not always make use of what Dr. McClelland calls an "incomparable system of therapeutics." A second inference is that the definition is intended to legitimatize practice that is at variance with the principles of homeopathy and is calculated to do it irreparable harm. Such expressions inculcate feelings of mistrust in the men who are preparing to succeed us. They do not

inspire a confidence

and kindle a determination to add the might of effort to extending the scope and application of the only method and means founded upon law. Their influence is retrograde, they stimulate a conduct that invites the ridicule of the regular and makes the positive untenable save as it is shielded by the name Homeopathy, coupled with an ability to deceive. A single truth may buoy and float a raft of fraud, and just as sure as the old man's head is sinking lower on his bosom and his arms have fallen helpless to his side, just so sure will Homeopathy as a system be instituted, be a thing of the past, unless a halt is called upon those who forever pull down and never build up.

[blocks in formation]

many times I have had failures; yet this does not disprove the fact that, when a remedy is given in strict accordance with the homeopathic law, a cure must necessarily follow. A failure to cure is usually the fault of the prescriber.

Calcarea Carb.-The first case to which I wish to call your attention is a typical Calcarea Carb. case, and is given for two purposes. Ist, the marked and satisfactory results attained; 2d, the opportunity of comparing the remedy with Calcarea Phos.

Case.-Child about two years old; fair, blue eyes, light hair, open and pulsating fontanelles, large head, small neck, large abdomen, small and poorly developed legs. The child was put in a nursery, with the idea that it would never get well, the supposition being that it would never walk. Calcarea Carb. was prescribed, a powder night and morn ing. In six months the child's nutrition was very much improved; it grew stronger in every way, so that it began to creep about; within one year it walked and today shows very few of its earliest symptoms. Some might question, why not have prescribed Calcarea. Phos? Calcarea Phos. has the want of bone development the same as Calcarea Carb., but the general make-up of the child is different. Instead of being fat it is thin and scrawny; the face is thin and yellowish; the head is large, with open fontanelles; the abdomen is sunken instead of being "pot-bellied;" the limbs. are small and shriveled.

The second Calcarea Carb. case is entirely different. This man came to me from out of town.

July 15th, 1901.-Aged 44; had typhoid fever nine years ago, recovering nicely. Father died at 55 of Bright's Disease. Two brothers dead, one dying in infancy, the other of consumption at

24. Patient has been feeling poorly since March, at that time having had "winter cholera." Soon after recovery he noticed that his stomach would not retain cold water. Wakes up at night and has to vomit.

This seems to be caused by the collection of bitter fluid. Is usually very much nauseated before he vomits, but can eat heartily soon after; extreme waterbrash, nearly a pint running out of the mouth at a time; no pain, except when the waterbrash begins; no headache; no thirst; bowels and kidneys all right; hands and feet go to sleep easily, especially the left hand; stomach is sore and tender; throat burns; waterbrash burns; can eat light food, but nothing like meat; a feeling as of a lump in the throat.

It is not my purpose to diagnose this case, nor to give reasons, physiological or otherwise, as to the cause of pathological conditions. It is only a question of remedy. Nux., Pulsatilla., Calcarea Carb., and Ignatia came to me. The most prominent symptoms in this case, to my mind, was the extreme acidity and waterbrash, hence, that was the first to consider. Pulsatilla has the waterbrash, nausea and vomiting, but in this case it was usually the result of eating pastry and rich food, and did not usually occur at any other time. Nux Vom. also has the sour eructations, occurring several hours after a meal, produced by eating rich and highly seasoned food, smoking, etc. Ignatia has sour eructations, but it is not so profuse as in the other remedies and is dependent upon the peculiar conditions which occur under that remedy.

Calcarea Carb. has a profuse waterbrash, running in streams from the mouth. The waterbrash, nausea and vomiting occur whether food has been taken or not. This is not true of the

other remedies. Douglass gives the symptoms in a very concise manner as follows: "Nausea, with flow of sour water from mouth. Vomiting of sour water, at night."

The other symptoms of this case found under Calcarea Carb. are: Limbs go to sleep easily; has also a feeling of constriction of the throat, which is probably the same as expressed by the patient, as a "feeling of a lump in the throat." There is no doubt in my mind but that this man received Calcarea Carb. or various forms of lime, and other anti-acids, as well as numerous digestants. In fact, he remarked that he had taken bushels of pepsin.

He came prepared to go to the hospital, willing to submit to anything which would offer relief. I prescribed Calcarea 30x, with instructions to return in two days, remarking that the prescription was preparatory for further treatment and should not be taken any longer than the time mentioned. To my surprise he returned in two days with the following report: "Feel better; have not vomited since; have had no waterbrash since; have had very little headache. Have severe pain, at times in the region of the liver. Mouth tastes badly mornings." Continued Cal. Carb. 30x. Called again July 20th, reporting continued improvement. The same remedy was continued. Since then I have made one prescription, Chelidoniun., and one, Bryonia, for the pain in the liver. I have not seen him for a month or more; up to that time he had not had a return of the stomach trouble; he was able to work and could eat almost anything.

Lachesis. I present the Lachesis case for two reasons. Ist.-Because the case occurred in a man, was well marked and responded nicely and quickly to the remedy. 2d. Because the cures made

« PreviousContinue »