These two facts show that the whole question of the dose was, at the time of Hahnemann’s writing, an open one, to be settled by experiment alone.
And, as Hahnemann showed that those morbid conditions of the system in which a specific exerts the most power in small doses, in which, in other words, the susceptibility of the system to the specific is the greatest, are precisely those in which the symptoms are similar to those which the same drug would produce in a healthy person, if follows that no experiment can be valid on the subject of the dose which does not take into consideration the condition of the patient at the time, and which does not require, as preliminary conditions, first, that the subject of the experiment shall be sick, and second, that the symptoms of the sickness shall be similar to those which the drug with which the experiment is made would produce on the healthy subject.
In none of the experiments on which our opponents base their objections to the dose of Homoeopathy have these conditions been observed.
In no case in which they have been observed has the result been adverse to that at which Hahnemann arrived.
But, in truth, these objections depend in general not so much on the result of experiments as on what is called the a priori improbability, and upon the seeming simplicity and triviality of the means employed in proportion to the end sought to be attained.
The improbability exists only in the minds of those who reckon respecting the living organism as they reckon respecting an inanimate machine, employing the rules of physics. Let me quote again from Boyle: “Whereas,” he says, “it is objected that so small a quantity of the matter of a specific as is able to retain its nature, when it arrives at the part it should work on, must have little or no power to relieve it; this difficulty will not stagger those who know how unsafe it is to measure the power that natural agents may have to work upon such an engine as the human body by their bulk, rather than by their subtlety and activity.”
And as concerns the relative simplicity and triviality of the dose, listen to the practical Sydenham.
Speaking of the success of this new plan of treating rheumatism with whey, instead of by blood-letting, he says: “Should any one despise this method for its simplicity, I would have him to know that weak minds only, scorn things for being clear and plain. The usual pomp of medicine exhibited over dying patients is like the garlands of a beast at the sacrifice.” (1 Russell, History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine)
Gentleman of the Society: In the touch-races of ancient Greece the participants ran with lighted torches, each striving to preserve the flame alive, and to hand his torch unextinguished to his successor. If the light went out in his hands he was dishonoured. This was done in memory of Prometheus, who first brought fire from heaven for the benefit of men.
We have received from the generation of the pupils and successors of Hahnemann the blazing torch which the Prometheus of our system lighted at the alter of Eternal Truth. Our honor depends on the care with which we cherish it, and the state in which we, in turn, transmit it to those who shall follow us.
The especial direction which our labors should take is determined by the peculiarities of our method.
We are to increase the number of specific remedies. We are to labor diligently, as our predecessors have done, to increase our materia medica, until we shall have ascertained the specific remedial properties of all substances capable of being used in treating diseases.
But more especially are we to labor to make the knowledge we thus acquire of new specifics, and the knowledge we already possess of such as we now use, more exact and definite; until we shall possess an exhaustive knowledge of each remedy, and also such a differential knowledge as shall put us in possession of all the points of resemblance and difference between each of our remedies and all the rest.
And it is in this particular province that there is the greatest present need of labor. Our materia medica is being filled with the names of drugs of which a few general properties are loosely recorded, but respecting which no exact or exhaustive knowledge has been attempted to be gained. All this must be changed if we would establish and maintain a reputation at all commensurate with the demands of modern science.
Finally, we must bring to bear upon our study of materia medica and of symptomatology all that is useful in the labors of the physiological school of medicine, in the department of the collateral medical sciences of physiology, pathology, chemistry and physical diagnosis.
For, chaotic as are the therapeutics of this school, and based on a false philosophy, we must not suffer this fact to blind us to the wonderful progress made by it in these collateral sciences, and which are as valuable to us as to
it.
They supply the means of exact observation. We need, then, in part, to reprove our materia medica, availing ourselves of these improved means of observation; and we must employ the same in our examination of the sick.
We are called also to give ourselves to the study of subjective symptoms. This is our especial province, because the physiological school discards these symptoms. Prof. Bock says they are “difficult to understand and apt to deceive.”
I have yet to learn that a study is to be avoided because it is difficult! or that a precious tool should be cast aside because it requires a skilful had to use it.
The import of subjective symptoms, their connection with each other, their physiological and pathological significance, are all matters which it is indispensably necessary for us to elaborate and master.
And, last of all, the still open question of the dose demands our earnest study.
Conscientious, untiring labor in these departments will enable us to hold with honour our place in the great race, and to hand our torch, still blazing, to our successors.
We shall thus do our part toward making good the confident expectation of our master respecting his system.
“Our art,” says he, “needs no political lever, no worldly badges of honor, in order to become something. Amid all the rank and unsightly weeds that flourish round about it, it grows gradually form a small acorn to a slender tree; already its lofty summit overtops the rank vegetation around it. Only have patient! It strikes its roots deep under ground, gains strength imperceptibility, but all the more certainly, and in due time it will grow up to a lofty God’s oak, stretching its great arms, that no longer bend to the storm, far away into all the regions of the earth; and mankind, who have hitherto been tormented, will be refreshed under its beneficent shadows”.
Dr. Dunham graduated from Columbia University with Honours in 1847. In 1850 he received M.D. degree at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New York. While in Dublin, he received a dissecting wound that nearly killed him, but with the aid of homoeopathy he cured himself with Lachesis. He visited various homoeopathic hospitals in Europe and then went to Munster where he stayed with Dr. Boenninghausen and studied the methods of that great master. His works include 'Lectures on Materia Medica' and 'Homoeopathy - Science of Therapeutics'.