« PreviousContinue »
At Memphis, there boarded the train three stalwart homeopaths. They were President Foster of the Institute, the afore-mentioned Dr. Fisher and Second Vice-President Hensley, also of the Institute. We had a whole day for talk and verily the talk passed around. Fortunately there were no politicians in the party so we could talk of other things. We are of the opinion that some good to the homeopathic world at large will result if it has not already resulted from that day on the train between Memphis and New Orleans.
Reaching the latter city, we found everything and everybody in a state bordering on hilarity, to say the least. But we'll pass that by, together with the doings of the next thirty-six hours, or say until we gathered for the first session of the society. The REPORTER, fortunately, does not carry red ink so that we may be pardoned for not trying to depict the scenes of those hours. And don't ask us about them.
President Hallman was in the chair and Secretary Harper, before mentioned, ably supported him. The Mayor properly welcomed us, Dr. Fisher doing the honors for the Society. President Foster of the Institute made a good impression with his address, following Dr. W. E. Reily, the chairman of the section on “Homøopathy and Propagandism." Dr. Dewey, he of the Journal, the Medical Council and the Ann Arbor University was fine. So was Royal. H. C. Allen, Chicago's late nestor of homøopathy was down for a paper and in its stead Chairman Reily asked Dr. E. P. Banning to speak. And he did. He told of that staunch promoter and defender of Hahnemann's principles in words whose eloquence and beauty impressed his hearers wonderfully. Seldom has there been a more eloquent bit of oratory and seldom has a more fitting and well-deserved tribute been paid. It were well to live to merit such words.
We cannot take up the whole program. Both time and space prohibit. Suffice it to say that the papers were beyond the grade asually, presented and were fully discussed. And earnestly, too. Witness the royal and loyal Stout of Florida. He does or does not believe in State Boards, or at least some of them. He also does or does not believe in examinations. But he does believe in doing things if once you start to do them. He does not believe in making such examinations that, to use his own words, spoken seriously and without a quiver of the eyelid, "it would take a damn fool to fail.” So you see, he's positive and sure as to his ideas.
Ever hear of the man with the red necktie? He was there and the influence of that piece of haberdashery was such as to put Dr. Bailey to route, or almost. He felt a fear when he came to debate with a man who would adorn himself with that color of flame. So Dr. Walton covered it up.
A stalwart letter from Dr. Biggar did not atone for his absence, though it did show him to be up and doing in the interests of our school.
The paper by Osgood of Mobile, ours of '96, showed that the seed sown in Cleveland was producing good fruit. He believes in homæopathy, sure, and he sticks to his belief.
Another fellow we met, almost the first one, was Hulett, who from away down in Mississippi chose the C. H. M. C. for his Alma Mater and he's making good, too. And that's the way it is. Whereever one goes he is almost sure to run across some fellow from ours who is making good. Dr. Hensley had a lot of good words for Bonnell and Sink who are located in Oklahoma. He says they are decidedly prosperous. Goodwin, too, whom we met at Kansas City, shows the same earmarks. So does Richardson, with whom we hobnobbed at Detroit, with his fur coat and stylish run-about. And there was Moses T. Runnells, °74, rejuvenated, young as the youngest, proudly escorting his bride of a few weeks through the intricacies and mazes of the City of the Creole. His thirty-five years of doctor life seem now to set but lightly upon his head.
Not of ours but good fellows every one of them, these from the "no’th" graced the meeting: Walton, Foster, Reily, Fisher, Sawyer, Geiser, M. T. Runnells, Carmichael, T. F. Smith, Hensley, Spalding, Dewey, Cobb, Royal and Vincent. Dr. Vincent is from Springfield, Illinois, and was better known to the profession a score of years ago than he is now for he was a power then. He was for years the leading member of the Illinois State Board of Health and made a name for our school.
E. Stillman Bailey is another man who deserves special mention. He has for the past year been making studies of pitch-blende, whose radio-activity has been long known but never utilized. The sum of $5,000 plus a ton of pitch-blende, an experienced chemist and unlimited time is just one grain of radium. Out in Colorado, Bailey won't tell where, some of his friends found a deposit of pitch-blende. Bailey and Blackmarr of Hahnemann College, Chicago, have been working with the purpose of making some practical use of it. They have gotten so far that it is now ground, moistened and spread on pieces of gauze, thus putting it in such shape that it can be applied to any part of the body or to a plate for the purpose of radiography. It looks good. We were fortunate to obtain a piece of the prepared gauze and we are going to try it. Meantime Dr. Bailey has picture after picture showing that these same pieces of prepared gauze have a very decided radio-activity and can do things heretofore limited to the X-Ray.
Well, the meeting was a good one. Dr. Harper was rewarded with the Presidency for his good work. Dr. W. E. Reily was made Vice-President as was also Dr. G. F. Bagby. Dr. Boise, of Knoxville, was made Secretary and Dr. Crebbin, of New Orleans, Treasurer. The next meeting will be held at Hot Springs, Arkansas.
A MATERIA MEDICA RECITATION.
BY ALVAN L. WALTZ, M. D., PROF. OF MATERIA MEDICA, CLEVELAND
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE.
1. Violent and persistent Mania, desires to tear and cut things, especially clothes : weeps and howls, or prays and talks about religious things : curses and howls all night.
2. Oppressed breathing, must sit up in bed, relieved by expectoration of mucous. Much rattling of mucous, difficult expectoration.
3. Sour vomiting, or vomiting of curds; also sour undigested curdled stools.
Before reading this article any further, take your pencil in hand and jot down the remedy that you think applies to each one of the above questions. Then after you have made your first choice set down all the remedies which comes to your mind for each one of the questions. You will than be in a position to study and enjoy the recitation as we proceed. By way of introduction I wish to say that, to my mind, the scheme of teaching Materia Medica in the Cleveland Homeopathic Medical College is an ideal one. During the first year the student is taught pharmacology and the organon. During the second year the physiological action of drugs is taught. This paves the way for the teaching of the symptomology of the remedies in the third year. During the fourth year the student is expected to differentiate or discuss the application of the various remedies. You will see that in order to do this intelligently the work of the second and third year must be well grounded in the minds of the student or the last year will simply be a repetition in the study of symptomology and will be a serious losis of valuable time, making intelligent differentiation impossible. Now then, to the study of our recitation. I think it is a good plan to let the student visit the sick rooms in his mind, and imagine that the patient has the symptoms enumerated above. Say to him, “Here is a patient who has violent and persistent mania, desires to tear and cut things, especially clothes; weeps and howls: prays and talks about religious things; curses and howls all night.” At the point the student may make a serious objection, one that you may have in mind too, and that is, no doctor or student should be compelled to make a prescription from one or two symptoms, but should take into consideration the totality of symptoms. A very valid objection. In all cases no prescription should be made without taking into consideration the totality of the symptoms. But there is no true homeopathic physician, but that has in mind one or more remedies suggested to him by some one or two prominent symptoms, and as soon as he has such a remedy in mind he begins to apply its symptomology to the symptoms of the disease to see whether there exists a sufficient similium to prescribe the remedy or whether he will have to try out another. The student having listened to the above symptoms at once recalis certain remedies which have just such indications, and those will probably be Bell., Aurum, Stramonium and Verat. Alb. You should impress him with the necessity of being ready to prescribe. The patient and friends demand that he do so at once. So he selects one of the above remedies to start his differentiation. Suppose he selects Balladonna. Very good. Belladonna has furious delirium, wants to bite, strike and spit on those around. Wants to tear things especially the clothes. Bell. does not have a tendency to religious mania. Aurum wants to pray but does not have the furious mania. Stramonium has a furious delirium, but does not want to tear or cut things, nor does it have any religious tendency. Strange to say, Verat. alb. has all the symptoms occurring in the question and hence by the process of elimination would be the remedy to prescribe. In this recitation, however, the student has become acquainted with remedies suitable, in some degree, found in question 1
Now as to question No. 2. Oppressed breathing, must sit up and as the symptoms are related there should be at once come to the mind of the student such remedies as Aconite, Arsenicum, Anttart., Sambucus, Sulphur and others. Much rattling of mucous brings in mind Ant. tart. Ipecac, Phosphorus and Stannum. Taking the question as a whole Ant. tart. and Ipecac, would stand out most prominently. Now the student is required to begin the process of elimination as it applies to the whole question. Aconite, Arsenicúm, Sulphur and Sambucus all have dyspnoea and oppressed breything but none of them have the great rattling of mucous in the chest. They are all more apt to have a dry wheezing cough.
Stannum is a splendid remedy and has most of the symptoms in question No. 2. except that while there is a good deal of loose rattling cough, there is easy expectoration and for that reason this remedy would not be chosen. Phosphorus has some rattling of mucous and oppression but its symptomology does not come so near as Ipecac or Ant.-tart.
Ipecac has oppressed breathing and the rattling of mucous. "Must sit up in bed,” however, does not occur in Ipecac. Ant-tart, also has the oppressed breathing and must sit up in bed. They both have the rattling of mucous in the chest with inability to raise. How then shall we differentiate. Ipecac is indicated in the acute stage, the cough is quite constant, and there is very apt to be a good deal of nausea. Where Ant-tart. is indicated, the cough seems to get less frequent all the time with marked increase of the rattling of mucous and then too the Ant-tart. cough is worse at 3 A. M. At this time I have a good opportunity to test the student as to his knowledge of other remedies having a cough at 3 A. M. This is found under Kali Carb. So you see while a student would get down all of these remedies covering some of the symptoms his knowledge of remedies should be such that he would necessarily select Ant.-tart. In making these differentiations he has familiarized himself with a few remedies indicated in a loose, rattling cough which serve him well when he gets out into practice.
Question No. 3. Sour stools, sour vomiting, curds in stools and vomited matter, also undigested stools. There are certain remedies that have symptoms standing out boldly which come to the student's mind at once as he takes these symptoms, for instance: Calcarea Carb., Aethusa ard possibly Rheum. I think that in most cases the first two would be selected. As to their differentiation you would proceed about as follows: Both have sour vomiting and sour stools; both have curds in the stools and vomiting matter; both have undigested stools. Rheum has sour smelling stools and perspiration, but does not have the curdled stools, so while this remedy would be thought of, it would be at once eliminated because it would not fit all the phases of the question. As far as the question is concerned Calcarea carb. and Aethusa would be tied for first place, but it is evident that one or the other of them should fit this case so a further differentiation must be made. Aethusa has greater prostration after stool and vomiting. It also has greater acidity so that the curds 'would be larger. Aethusa is more apt to have convulsions and then it has the peculiar symptoms of the eyes turning dowr.
Calarea carb. has greater distension of the abdomen and has