In the case here related we find an illustration of these propositions; Arsenicum so clearly indicated in the case caused, after three days, twice, the same new symptoms not known to belong to Arsenicum. When it appeared the second the time it was not interfered with, and disappeared with all the other symptoms belonging to the case. To the thoughtful Healer these observations present a number of questions.
Shall we add this new symptom (inflamed and stinging bunion) to the pathogenesis of Arsenicum? Shall we wait in each individual case for the exhaustive action of the single dose? And if a single dose, as it is illustrated in this case, can fully restore health, why should we give repeated doses to the sick till we have ascertained it to be necessary, because the action of the single dose is very soon exhausted. How can we bring the critical days to guide us in our therapeutics? .
COMMENTS ON 4.
The greatest and most important question arising in a given case, is, whether a new remedy should be administered, or the former one repeated, or no medicine should be given, and we should wait. This is surely very often a perplexing question. In the case here stated an error was committed, and we have already dwelt upon it; but in a great majority of cases such an error is not so easily remedied.
It will very frequently happen that the disturbance created by this erroneously-administered remedy interfering with the action of a health-restoring and truly homoeopathic medicine, will be followed by a new combination of symptoms not having any similarity with the first symptoms observed; and we then generally find a grave case before us. This being so, the importance of the question of medicine or no medicine becomes apparent.
When we are not quite certain whether the dose before administered has exhausted its effects, or whether new symptoms presenting themselves, and not known to belong to the medicine then acting, are indicating an improvement or a progress of the disorder, then we should give the benefit to our doubt, and decide on no medicine. If the new symptoms belong to the remedy administered then it is evidently acting beneficially and we decide on no medicine.
In an epidemic of croup here, many years ago the children who always gave a hoarse barking cough in the early morning hours, were comparatively well during the day, but were attacked the following night with malignant membranous croup. When a single dose of Belladonna was administered in the morning, they full recovered; but at 4 p.m., a violent fever, with headache and drowsiness, would set in.
When no medicine was given for these symptoms characteristic of Belladonna this fever would end by 6 or 7 p.m. in a perspiration, and without any more medicine the child would recover; when medicine was given, and especially when Aconite was administered, which from the absence of its characteristic restlessness, was unsuitable, then the child became very ill, the membranous croup became fully developed, and presented a very grave case. Such cases were hard to manage. No medicine in this case was the proper decision.
To-day, October 22nd, Mrs. B., above referred to, reported herself unusually well. She has not taken any medicine since the evening of August 3rd.
Comparative Materia Medica (Philadelphia, 1854)
Text-Book of Materia Medica (1866)