In this connection we might give our definition of a homoeopathic prescription. A homoeopathic prescription is one which contains in a subphysiological dose, the single remedy which produces all the symptoms, sensations, and a pathology or physiological disturbance similar to that of the disease for which the prescription in intended, this occurring in the same anatomical location as it does in the condition to be treated.
A remedy cannot cure a condition unless there results from the action of the former a pathology or physiological disturbance which is very similar to that which is caused by the disease. The physiological disturbance produced by Tabacum is not at all similar to that caused by Sabadilla, and if either remedy is presented when the other is indicated, it can do no good because it is given for a condition which does not exist.
The experiment also suggests the advisability of proving certain remedies when mixed in various proportions. Quite likely new symptom groups would be developed which would correspond to certain clinical states for which there is at present no homoeopathically indicated remedy.
To give a demonstrable reason why remedies should not be mixed or alternated we selected Tabacum and Sabadilla, as before stated, because both drugs act upon the same tissue and each remedy produces symptoms somewhat similar to those resulting from the other. For this reason there might be a desire, in the hands of the careless and non-discriminating prescriber, to alternate or mix them.
We have attempted to demonstrated the fallacy of such a procedure and what has been said of, and done with, these drugs could as easily be affirmed of any other two medicines which upon superficial examination appear to have indications of a somewhat similar nature and which there fore the prescriber might be tempted to alternate or mix.
I have not had time enough since hearing Sir Bose to thoroughly digest his statements, but this suggestion or though comes to me. Take eight or ten plants of the same kind and age grown in the same surroundings; poison some with Arsenic and note the result, others with Carbolic ac., and still others with Mercury; then try your antidotes, especially Hepar for the Mercury. Finally compare the effects of these one with another, and what would be still more instructive, the result of the same experiments on animals. There would be at least one objection removed by the experiment on plants which some make about animals, viz., the suffering.
We have now secured our first objective, viz., the symptom. How are we to secure our second, viz., the grouping of symptoms? Let me answer that by an analogous illustration. During the past few weeks we have gazed with astonishment, delight and pleasure upon some of the original works of the great masters. We all realized that those great building, statues and paintings at first existed in the brain of their author.
What was necessary for the painter to transfer that picture from his brain to the canvas or the wall? First, a knowledge of the material he must use; second, a knowledge of the kind and amount he must mix to produce paints having each or all the colors of the rainbow; third, having his paints of various colors, he must know how to apply them to the canvas or wall. The material is our symptoms. We have them. How can we know how to (mix) group them? That is our next step.
