Homeopathic Posology

We should examine our case carefully and systematically, select out first remedy and potency with care, give our first dose, if the remedy and dose are right *there will be results. We need have no doubt on that score. The indicated remedy and potency, even in a single dose cannot be given without some result and the result must be good. Generally speaking, it may be taken for granted that if there is no perceptible result after a reasonable time, depending upon the nature of the case, either the remedy or the potency was wrong.

One of the most difficult things is to *learn to wait. Three things are necessary; wisdom courage and patience. ” Strong doses” and frequent repetition will not avail if the remedy is not right.

In Par. 245 Hahnemann gives this general rule: *” Perceptible and continued progress of improvement in an acute or chronic disease, is a condition which, as long as it last, invariably counterindicates the repetition of any medicine whatever, because the beneficial effect which the medicine continues to exert is rapidly approaching its perfection. Under these circumstances every new dose of medicine would disturb the process of recovery.”

In the long note to Par. 246, however which should be carefully studied, Hahnemann qualifies this statement and indicates the circumstances under which it is advisable to repeat the doses of the same remedy, using the action of Sulphur in chronic diseases as an illustration.

In Par. 247-8, Hahnemann says: ” These periods” ( marked by the repetition of doses) *” are always to be determined by the more or less acute course of the disease and by the nature of the remedy employed. The dose of the same medicine is to br repeated several times, if necessary, but only until recovery ensues, or until the remedy ceases to produces improvement; at that period the remainder of the disease, having suffered a change in its group of symptoms, require another homoeopathic medicine, Study also Pars, 249-252.

The single dose of the indicated remedy, repeated whenever improvement ceases, as long as new or changed symptoms do not indicate a change of remedy, is adapted to all cases, but especially to chronic cases and to such acute cases as can be seen frequently and watched closely. The nature and progress of the disease will determine, under this rule, how often the dose is to be repeated. Cases may present themselves, however, which cannot be watched as closely as we would like. We may not be able to visit the patient frequently, nor remain with him long enough to observe th full period of remedial action. In such cases it is permissible and indeed necessary, to order a repetition of doses at stated intervals of one, two or three hours, until improvement is felt or seen, or perhaps until out next visit.In such cases it is well to direct that the medicine be stopped as soon as the patient is better, giving some simple instruction to the nurse as to what constitutes a reliable sign of improvement, according to the nature of the case.

If a patient is so gravely ill as to require doses at intervals of less than one hour it is the physician’s duty to remain with the patient and judge of his condition and progress for himself, *unless he is absolutely sure of the remedy, or is in telephonic communication with case.

Effect of the Remedy – The next point to be considered under the general subject of Homoeopathic Posology is: *The Effect of the Remedy.

After we have selected what we believe to be the indicated remedy and administered it in proper potency and dosage, it is our duty to observe the patient carefully in order that we may correctly note and intelligently interpret the changes that occur’ for upon these changes in the patient’s condition, as revealed by the symptoms, depend our subsequent action in the further treatment of the case.

The first thing to be determined is whether the remedy has acted at all or not. If it has not acted, we have next to determine whether the failure to act is due to an error in the selection of the remedy, or to the selection of the wrong potency of the remedy. If, in carefully reviewing our symptom-record, we find the remedy lightly chosen we change the potency to a higher or lower potency, as circumstances may require after a reconsideration of the patient’s degree of susceptibility.

In deciding the question whether the remedy has acted or not, we must be careful not be misled by the opinions or prejudices of the patient or his attendants. Some patient, having all the their interest and attention centered upon some particular symptom which they regard as all-important, will assert that there has been no change; that they are no better, or even worse than they were before they took the remedy. These statements should be received with great caution and we should proceed to go over the symptom record item by item with care. We need not antagonize the patient by gruffly asserting that he must be mistaken but may express our regret or sympathy and then quietly question him as to each particular symptom. We will frequently find that the patient has really improved in many respects, although his pet symptom (often constipation) is as yet unchanged.

*The action of remedy is shown by changes in the symptoms of the patient. Upon the character of those changes depends our further course of action. A remedy shows its action, 1. by producing new symptoms; 2. by the disappearance of symptoms; 3, by the increase or aggravation of the symptoms; 4. by the amelioration of symptoms; 5 by a change in the order and direction of symptoms.

1. An improperly chosen remedy may change the condition of an oversensitive patient by producing new symptoms not related to the disease and detrimental to his welfare. These are pathogenetic symptoms. Their appearance indicates that the remedy is not curing the patient, but merely making a proving. Discontinuance and an antidote is demanded.

2. A correctly chosen remedy given in too low or sometimes too high a potency, or in too many doses, may cause an aggravation of the existing symptoms so severe as to endanger the life of the patient; especially if the patient be a child or a sensitive person and if a vital organ, like the brain or lungs be affected Belladonna in the third or sixth potency, given in too frequently doses in a case of meningitis, for example may cause death from overaction; whereas the thirtieth or two hundredth potency given in a single dose, or in doses repeated only until some change of symptoms is noticed, will speedily cure. Phosphorus 3rd or 6th in pneumonia under similar circumstances may rapidly cause death. The low potencies of deeply acting medicines are dangerous in such cases in proportion to their similarity to the symptoms.

The more accurate the selection of the medicine, the greater must be the care exercised not to injured the patient by prescribing potencies too low and doses too numerous. Medication should be stopped on the first appearance of such aggravations. An antidote should be administered if they do not speedily diminish. The careless prescriber rarely recognizes such aggravation. When he notices the symptoms he usually attributes them to the natural course of the disease or calls it a ” Complication”.

3. A slight aggravation of intensification of the symptoms, appearing quickly after giving the remedy and soon passing away is a good sign. It calls for a suspension of medication until the after-following improvement ceases or the symptoms change again. It is the first and best evidence of the curative action of a well chosen remedy.

4. A prolonged aggravation without amelioration and with progressive decline of the patient is sometimes seen in chronic, deep seated disease as a result of the over-action of a deeply acting anti-psoric or anti-syphilitic medicine, given in too high a potency in the beginning of treatment. If the potency is too high its action may be too deep and far-reaching, and the reaction too great for the weakened vital power to carry on. Such remedies as Sulphur, Calcarea, Mercury, Arsenic and Phosphorous, given in the 50 M. or C.M., potencies, have sometimes hastened tubercular or tertiary syphilitic cases into the grave. In the beginning treatment of suspicious or possibly incurable cases it is better to use medium potencies, like the 30th or 200th and go higher gradually, if necessary as treatment progresses and the patient improves.

Very high potencies of the closely similar remedy are merciless searches-out of hidden things. They will sometimes bring to light a veritable avalanche of symptoms which overwhelms the weakened patient. The diseases has not gone so far, a long and severe aggravation may fortunately be followed by slow improvement. That patient was on the “borderland,” with the beginning of serious destructive change in some vital organ.

*In these homoeopathic reaction and aggravations we distinguish between changes occurring in vital organs and changes in superficial tissues and non-vital organs. When old skin eruptions reappear, old ulcers break out again, old fistulae re-open, old discharges flow again, swollen tubercular glands become inflamed, break down and suppurated away; old joint pains return; the patient’s heart, lung kidney, liver, spleen or or brain symptoms in the meantime improving; then we know that both remedy and dose were right and true cure is in progress. But if we find superficial symptoms disappearing and vital organs showing signs of advancing disease, we know we have failed.

Stuart Close
Stuart M. Close (1860-1929)
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.

His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.

Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.

In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.

Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.

Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.