Until those who do understand that Homoeopathy implies a fixed principle in drug selection, and that the quantity and strength of the drugs used is a matter of practical experience, having literally no bearing at all upon the principle, will take the trouble to explain the real truth, the crass ignorance of the one class and the want of knowledge of the other will hold sway, and certainly in veterinary practice the advantages of the Hahnemannian system will be limited to the very few.
The next disadvantage homoeopathic veterinary practitioners have to contend with, is the difficulty experienced in convincing attendants of the great advantage gained by the frequent administration of small.
This important feature of homoeopathic practice-which, as has already been stated, is essentially a matter of experience and not of principle–is particularly advantageous in all cases of acute disease, and it must be understood that I refer to quantity, not potency.
The special attenuation of a given drug can only be determined after a fairly extensive practical experience, both as, regards the nature and character of the drug to be used, the class of animal to be treated, and the stage of the disease of which it is the subject. By way of illustration, we will assume that an animal is the subject of some acute form of disease which is ushered in with very decided febrile conditions–an exalted temperature, rapid pulse and tumultuous respiration; the animal refuse nourishment, and in a very short time–only a few hours perhaps–great prostration and weakness supervene, and the poor creature feels too ill to be bothered with taking medicine or anything else.
Some allopaths would tell you that frequent doses are injurious because, they say, the animal is worried by constant attention. Undoubtedly, to the administration of considerable doses of crude unpalatable drugs, the swallowing of which the animal will resist to the uttermost of its available strength, this objection applies with great force. On the other hand, the small doses of the comparatively tasteless homoeo-preparations, which have always proved so effective in their results, may be frequently administered with a minimum of annoyance to an animal and with a rapidity of action alike gratifying to the sufferer, attendant and the owner; and my experience confirms me in the belief that the wear and tear which both patient and nurse undergo–bearing in mind the duration of the illness–is considerably less with the frequent does of the homoeopathist than with the more pungent and less frequent does of the allopath, independent of the advantage gained in the selection of the medicine.
All this, however, has to be learned by experience before attendants will believe in it, and it is essentially a disadvantage, and will continue to remain so until Homoeopathy is better understood; furthermore, the results are not in-frequently disappointing, because the attendant neglects to give the medicine as often as he ought and is instructed to do, and in this degree the practitioner is handicapped. I have very often proved the truth of this when I have had patients under personal supervision at my own infirmary, to which I regularity administered the medicine myself. Under such circumstances the results are little short of marvellous, proof of which will be afforded in some of the cases propose to give an account of here-after.
The potency or attenuation of the homoeopathic preparation is often a source of difficulty. It may be argued that it is unnecessary for a veterinary surgeon to explain what, or what manner of drug he is prescribing. Granted. But, as a rule, particularly if it is the professional man’s first visit, and the case is an urgent one, the attendant I and for that matter the owner too–is sufficiently curious and inquisitive to have a taste at the bottle, and unless it contains some pungent or nauseous concoction, he runs away with the idea that no good can result from its administration–indeed, the more unpalatable and disgusting to the taste the medicine is, the greater is his faith in it, and the more assiduously will he apply himself to its administration.
Only a growing confidence in the practitioner and a more extended knowledge of the really wonderful results obtained from the use of homoeopathically-prepared drugs can obviate this disadvantage.
Cases of lameness in horses are a fruitful source of difficulty and disadvantage; this arises from no lack of success in our treatment. It is, nevertheless, much more difficult to obtain good results in cases of lameness than in cases of idiopathic disease. Lameness, in the majority of cases, is due to violence in some form or other, such as concussion, strain and injury from falls.
Splits, spavins, curbs, thoropins, and the like, though they do unquestionably arise spontaneously as the result of hereditary taint in numerous instances, probably more often than not owe their origin to some traumatic cause, such as I have already indicated. In any case, however, an alteration of or an addition to the normal healthy tissue takes place; for instance, in the case of a sprained tendon or ligament, due it may be to a slip either in the stable when rising from the recumbent position or on the treacherous asphalt or stone-pitching of our busy towns; what is the effect upon the fibrous tissue of which these parts are composed?
The inflammatory process is set up, whereupon an exudation takes place both within and without the substance of the tendon. This exudate ultimately becomes formed material, which results in a complete organic change in the structure of the part. If taken in time the thickening which is thus effected may be absorbed, but it will be apparent to any one that, to effect such an alteration of tissue from the diseased condition produced by the inflammatory process and to restore it to its normal state, sometime and unremitting perseverance in treatment is requisite. To realise benefit by the application of drugs which have a specific influence on fibrous tissue must of necessity involve considerable hard work in the way of friction without which under such conditions their application is perfectly useless.
The amount of trouble that has to be expended in this direction to obtain a successful issue only too often proves a barrier to its adoption; it is so much easier to adopt counter irritation by resorting to some form of blistering agent and allow the animal to lie by for a time. I am by no means a hard and fast opponent of counter irritation, for under certain conditions I believe it to be a truly homoeopathic method of procedure, and in some cases it cannot be dispensed with; but discrimination is all important so as to avoid putting an animal to unnecessary pain.
Moreover, the use of drugs which require considerable friction, and involve frequent labour in their application, is very often the best and most suitable to the nature of the injury and by far the most economical, the cure being effected more rapidly without any after-consequences as in the case of counter irritation; but how few take this into consideration, and the allopathic practitioner almost invariably vetoes any sort of treatment other than counter irritation, and in not a few cases, I regret to add, scoffs at the idea of any good arising from the use of Arnica, Rhus tox., Calendula and any other such remedies as homoeopathists are accustomed to rely upon under conditions of the kind already described.
As I have before asserted, there are cases wherein counter irritation is not only the best, but actually the only method of treatment likely to prove useful: on the other hand there is a considerable number of cases wherein counter irritation and its attendant pain, not infrequent blemishing, is not only unnecessary but positively harmful, in which our homoeopathically selected drug, externally applied, is the true remedy; but to avail themselves of its advantages owners must insist upon having only a homoeopathic practitioner called in.
It does not come within the compass of this tract to dilate upon the various pathological conditions which are the causes of lameness or it would be a most congenial task to point out the different circumstances affecting horses when, lame and the advantage, both to owner and animal, arising from the use of non- vesicating drugs, among which are included those already indicated; the bare statement must in the present instance suffice and I must ask readers to take my word for it: after which, the best method of proving or attempting to disprove the claim I make for this kind of treatment is to put the first available case to the test under the care of a competent homoeopathic practitioner.
Thus far I have confined myself to some of the DISADVANTAGES that attend the homoeopathic system in veterinary practice; in support of the ADVANTAGES which follow the practice of Hahnemann’s system, I propose to support this part of my argument with a few illustrations from my case book, and with a view to show how general the application of homoeopathic therapeutics is, I shall select but a few of the worst cases among each class of animals; and to, begin with take the BOVINES.
