Administration of medicines


In a peculiar kind of typhus fever, (Lesser Writings, p. 712.) Hahnemann advised the alternation of bryonia and rhus. In an epidemic of purpura miliaris (Ibid., p. 781) he counselled the alternation of aconite and coffea. …


Hahnemann at first allowed the alternations of medicines in certain cases- He afterwards altogether condemns it -Cases in which he continued to practises it. His intercurrent remedies- Hering advocates the alternation of long and short acting medicines-He denies the propriety of alternating cuprum and veratrum-He advises the alternation of a medicine and its antidote-Gross recommends alternation-Rummel approves of it- Hartmann speaks favourably of it-Aegidi advises it in many cases- Hirschel practises rapid alternation rapid alternation-Kampfer looks upon it as a make shift-He disapproves of it, but says it is necessary in some cases- Griesselich only allows it in cases where the choice between two medicines is impossible-Trinks disapproves of it, but says it is allowable in certain rare cases-Marey recommends it in certain cases-Beilby denounces it is pleurisy-Horner advises it in pleurisy-The practice is reprehensible in chronic diseases-The practice of prescribing a course of several medicines in succession is akin to it- Alternation allowable in diseases of fixed course, where we can predict the symptoms that will occur-Cases in which it is justifiable-Bechet’s proof of its necessity in some cases- Hahnemann’s successions of medicines-Reasons for Hahnemann’s intercurrent medicines-Is it ever necessary to mix medicines?- Hahnemann’s early denunciations of mixtures-Liedbeck proposes to give the chemical compound of two indicated medicines-His mistake about the proving of iron-He accuses Hering of plagiarism- Aegidi’s proposal to mix medicines-Schron disapproves entirely of the practice-Molin proposes to prove mixtures -Griesselich condemns it- Simultaneous exhibition of two medicines externally and internally- Roux, Panthin, and Gauwerky propose to mix different dilutions-The mixture of medicines not allowable-Is occasionally practised-Omnium gatherum-Auxiliaries to homoeopathic treatment-Hahnemann recommends antipathic, palliative, and chemical remedies in certain cases- His employment of electricity, pitch-plasters, mesmerism, cold water- Hydropathic measures in great favour with some homoeopathists- Starke’s homoeopathic theory of hydropathy-Kurtz, Brutzer, Hampe, Ott, Russell, on the water-cure-Bloodletting approved by some- Kretschmar, Hering, Muller, Rummel, Rau, Henderson, Charge, advise it occasionally-Arnold, Elwert, Schubert, Ruckert, condemn it- Dietl proves its hurtfulness in pneumonia-Are purgatives ever allowable?-Cases in which they are-Black on their use-Are derivatives ever required?-Thirst alleged use in suppressed exanthemata-Cases in which stimulants are required-Certain useful non-homoeopathic the auxiliaries-Hot sponge in croup-Kinesitics- Galvanism-Burq’s chains-Junod’s hemospastic apparatus-Dry cupping-Mesmerism-Reichenbach’s magnetic meridian-Schroth’s thirst cure-Many non-homoeopathic auxiliaries employed by all practitioners.


ALTERNATION OF MEDICINES ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF MORE THAN ONE MEDICINE AT A TIME AND ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF AUXILIARIES

THE subjects that will occupy our attention this evening have given rise to much wordy warfare among the disciples of Hahnemann, attended by a good deal of unnecessary bitterness on the part of those who pretend to be the Elishas of homoeopathy- the sole inheritors of the prophetic mantle of our great Master.

In the first edition of the Organon Hahnemann has the following remarks on the subject of the administration of medicines in alteration:-

“It is only in some cases of ancient chronic diseases which are liable to no remarkable alterations, which have certain fixed and permanent fundamental symptoms, that two almost equally appropriate homoeopathic remedies may be successfully employed in alternation.” The reason he gives for this procedure is that the supply of thoroughly proved medicines is not yet sufficient to enable us to find among them one which shall exactly correspond to some cases. He regards this technical operation as a mere makeshift until better times-that is, until our Materia Medica shall be richer. In the later editions of the Organon (Fifth edition, Aphorism ). he sets his face against this practice, on the ground that the number of remedies we know the physiological actin of is no longer small, but suffices to meet every case, and also on this ground, that we cannot tell what alterations the first remedy will have effected in the morbid condition, so as to render the selection of an entirely different remedy imperative.

In some diseases, especially acute diseases of fixed character, however, he advised, from experience of its advantage, the alternation of two or more remedies.

Thus, in a peculiar kind of typhus fever, (Lesser Writings, p. 712.) he advised the alternation of bryonia and rhus. In an epidemic of purpura miliaris (Ibid., p. 781) he counselled the alternation of aconite and coffea. In croup he advised the alternate or rather sequential employment of aconite, spongia, and hepar sulphuris. (R.A.M. L., vi., 19e.)

In the last edition of the Organon (Org., p. 292, note.) he says:-“When for other diseases also we may consider it requisite, as far as we can calculate, to give eight, nine, or ten doses of tinct. sulphuris, it is yet more expedient in such a case to interpose after every, or every second or third dose, a dose of another medicine, which in this case is next in point of homoeopathic suitableness to sulphur (usually hepar sulphuris), and to allow this to act for eight nine, twelve, or fourteen days before again commencing a course of three doses of sulphur.” He also immediately afterwards states that it is necessary occasionally to interpose a dose of nux or pulsatilla betwixt the doses of sulphur in such a course, if sulphur symptoms make their appearance. Again, he mentions with approval the suggestion of Dr. Griesselich, to the effect that when we find that sulphur is not well borne by the patient we may interpose a dose of mercurius metallicus, when we shall find that after the action of the medicine the sulphur will be well borne by the patient. For the prophylaxis of cholera he advises the alternation of cuprum and veratrum.

In the Chronic Diseases (Vol.i. p. 165, note.) he mentions, inter alia, that he had cured some cases of intermittent fever, or rather some epidemics, of that disease, with aconite alternated with ipecacuanha, cina alternated with capsicum, arnica alternated with ipecacuanha, etc.; and he further states that some kinds of marsh-ague can only be cured by china combined (alternated) with antipsoric medicines.

Dr. Hering (Arch., xiii. 3.) was one of the first who wrote at length upon the technicality of the alternation of medicines He says, that a very short time after he first became. acquainted with homoeopathy, in 1822, he cured a liver complaint with jaundice by the alternate administration of ruta O, and ignatia 12, every third or fourth day. Afterwards he found it a good plan to alternate a long and a short-acting remedy, both of which correspond to a portion of the symptoms. He mentions that Dr. Ihm of Philadelphia cured a case of dropsy in a child by alternating bryonia and pulsatilla. It is, he says often useful to give an acute remedy speedily after a chronic one; as aconite after sulphur, hepar after silicea or zinc, nux after arsenic. By so doing, he asserts, we do not put a stop to the action of the first remedy. In all such cases, he observes, there occurs a third action, corresponding to those symptoms in which both remedies differ from each other. Hence, says he, in the teeth of Hahnemann’s advice, it is not advisable to give as prophylactics two such remedies as cuprum and veratrum alternately for cholera, for they will be unable in the very least to give protection against what they possess in common.

Relying upon this third action just alluded to, he has often given in chronic diseases two antipsorics, which each covered a portion of the symptoms, in rapid alternation. Thus to a liver case he first gave kali carbonicum, and followed it up by carbo vegetabilis in a few days, with wonderful success. In perfectly similar cases, neither the one nor the other remedy given alone was able to effect a like cure.

Hitherto, he says, he has generally given those antipsorics that act more briefly and slightly (such as carbo vegetabilis, aurum, argentum, platina, cuprum, conium, colocynthis, dulcamara, belladonna, rhus, clematis, anacardium, staphysagria, thuja, sabina, sabadilla, moschus) after the more powerful antipsorics (such as causticum, phosphorus, natrum muriaticum kali carbonicum, natrum carbonicum, calcarea, alumina, magnesia, silicea agaricus, bovista, lycopodium, sepia, bulimus (?).

The administration of a remedy in alternation with its antidote he commends. He learnt this technicality, he says, in the dry bellyache of the West Indies. Colocynthis, which he found to be the specific for this disease, in some cases caused frightful aggravations, for which he gave black coffee by teaspoonfuls; and he found this such an excellent plan, that he went on with it and treated numerous cases in this way. A similar plan he has adopted in reference to conium and coffee, sepia and vinegar, and occasionally phosphorus and opium. This practice is, he remarks, useful in the treatment of violent paroxysms of gout. He is of opinion that there are no such things as antidotes that completely do away with the action of a medicine; the stronger medicine always continue to act through the weaker. Camphor is, he says adapted for alternation with very few medicines. In the alternation of remedies attention must, he insists, be paid to the symptomatic relationships of the remedies.

R.E. Dudgeon
Robert Ellis Dudgeon 1820 – 1904 Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1839, Robert Ellis Dudgeon studied in Paris and Vienna before graduating as a doctor. Robert Ellis Dudgeon then became the editor of the British Journal of Homeopathy and he held this post for forty years.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon practiced at the London Homeopathic Hospital and specialised in Optics.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon wrote Pathogenetic Cyclopaedia 1839, Cure of Pannus by Innoculation, London and Edinburgh Journal of Medical Science 1844, Hahnemann’s Organon, 1849, Lectures on the Theory & Practice of Homeopathy, 1853, Homeopathic Treatment and Prevention of Asiatic Cholera 1847, Hahnemann’s Therapeutic Hints 1847, On Subaqueous Vision, Philosophical Magazine, 1871, The Influence of Homeopathy on General Medical Practice Since the Death of Hahnemann 1874, Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica, 2 vols 1878-81, The Human Eye Its Optical Construction, 1878, Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura, 1880, The Sphygmograph, 1882, Materia Medica: Physiological and Applied 1884, Hahnemann the Founder of Scientific Therapeutics 1882, Hahnemann’s Organon 1893 5th Edition, Prolongation of Life 1900, Hahnemann’s Lesser Writing.