Administration of medicines



What he probably meant to say was, that it would found that after the administration of sulphur for instance, calcarea would be indicated; but this is very different from the practice of some homoeopaths, whom I have seen prescribe for a case of chronic disease a long list of remedies to be taken in succession, whatever might happen. Such practice is mere slovenliness and carelessness; for it would be impossible for us to be certain that the second remedy in such a prescription would still be indicated after the action of the first had expired, or the third after the use of the second. Hahnemann’s advice on this point is to be considered useful, in so far as that we may expect such and such others; but it was never meant by him to supersede the necessity for making a careful survey of the case, after the expiry of the action of each medicine, in order to obtain the indications for the next remedy to be given.

Hahnemann also speaks occasionally of intercurrent remedies- medicines, to wit, that might be interposed betwixt two doses of an antipsoric. This plan he proposed at the period when, with the exception of a few remedies, he absolutely forbade the repetition of any antipsorics without the interposition of another remedy. Latterly, however, as we have seen on a former occasion, he entertained no dread of repeating the remedy an incalculable number of times, so that if the medicine continued still to be indicated, there would now be nothing un-Hahnemannic in repeating it immediately without the interposition of any intercurrent remedy.

Still in some of the instances Hahnemann gives, we may find it necessary to give one of his intercurrent remedies; thus, there can be no doubt that it is of great use in cases of chronic disease, where the menses come too early, too profusely, or last too long, to interpose a dose (or several doses) of nux vomica. The more constitutional treatment is not thereby interrupted but rather assisted.

The next point that demands consideration is the question-Is it unnecessary to give two to more medicines at once? Almost the first attacks of Hahnemann upon the practice of the old school were denunciations against its complex prescriptions, and almost his first earnest entreaty to his colleagues was to give but one medicine at a time. However thoroughly we may know the action of two medicines separately, it is, says he, impossible that we can, from any knowledge we possess of their separate action, predict what will be their effects in combination. Quackery, he exclaims, always goes hand in hand with complex mixtures. (Lesser Writings, p. 618.) What a withering sarcasm does he not pass upon the ordinary scientific hotch-potch system in that extraordinary preface to the Thesaurus Medicaminum! How he shows up the extravagant folly of the pedantic prescription of the old school, with their constituent, base, excipient, corrective, and director.

The arguments that hold good against the mixtures of the old school are equally applicable to any combinations of the homoeopathic medicines. Notwithstanding this, several leading men in the homoeopathic body have seriously proposed a practice tantamount to the mixing of two different remedies in one prescription,. In the first volume of the British Journal of Homoeopathy, Dr. Liedbeck of Sweden proposes to give in cases where two medicines seem equally indicated, the chemical compound of such two, if such a substance exist; for example, he says that in chlorosis, with affection of the lungs, in which iron was indicated, and at the same time sulphur required for some cutaneous disease, he had found it very advantageous to administer the chemical combination of these two substances, to wit, sulphuret of iron. Again, he believes that the beneficial action of acetate of iron in chlorosis depends as much upon the anemia-producing power of the acetic acid in the medicine as on the specific virtues of the iron; for the physiological action of the acetic acid, he refers to the popular experience that vinegar produces emaciation; and he makes a statement, very remarkable as coming from so sagacious and old a homoeopathist, to the effect that we know of no physiological proving of the acetate of iron, when we are told by Hahnemann himself, that most of the symptoms he gives under the head of ferrum were produced by its acetate. Nonnunquam bonus dormitat Homerus.

Dr. Liedbeck is so proud of his introduction of this mixture-practice into homoeopathy, that he soundly rates Dr. Hering for plagiarism of his original idea, when the latter worthy recommends calcarea arsenica for the cure of epilepsy. K Brit. Journ. of Hom., vii. 320. Many years before this, however,. Dr AEgidi l Archiv, xiv. 383. had made a proposition for the mixture of two remedies in certain cases, which deserves our attention, as it gave rise to a good deal of controversy amongst our German colleagues. He begins by saying that we all know the wonderful effects of mineral waters in certain cases, how they sometimes cure diseases that have resisted all the resources of art; and when we examine the mineral waters, we find that they contain, in small quantities generally, more than one antipsoric medicine.

This fact may, he says, be useful as a hint to the homoeopathist in the treatment of certain obstinate diseases, and whilst bearing always in view the great therapeutic law of similia similibus, he may still give two medicines in combination. Supposing a case for which he cannot find any one medicine that covers the whole symptoms, but that one portion corresponds to the action of one medicine, and the remainder to that of another; in such a case it is, he contends, useful to give the two remedies together. A certain number of the globules of each is to be put in a bottleful of water, the whole well shaken and thus given to the patient. He observes that it won’t do to give medicines thus that antidote each other, or such as have a symptomatic relationship; on the contrary, this procedure is only admissible with remedies that have a totally different mode of action.

He says we act according to this principle when we give such compounds as hepar sulphuris and cinnabar (he forgets to say that one of those at least has been perfectly and the other partially proved by Hahnemann himself), and he states that Hering virtually recognises the same practice when he proposes (Archiv, xiii., 2, 47) to prove augite, lapis lazuli, and other minerals, which are only chemical compounds of substances already employed in homoeopathy; but it is one thing to recommend the proving of a compound body, and another to propose its administration without proving: the first is in accordance, the last contrary to all the teachings of Hahnemann and the very first principles of homoeopathy, Aegidi’s suggestion caused as I have stated, some little controversy among the German homoeopathists, and the practice he proposed was generally condemned, even by those whose opinions in other respects did not always coincide with the teachings of Hahnemann. It was universally agreed that it would be a dangerous innovation on the hitherto pure and simple practice of giving only those remedies whose positive action on the healthy was known.

Schron (Naturheilprocesse, ii 247) has a few remarks upon this subject, which are distinguished by his usual common sense. He says the mixing of several homoeopathic medicines is not only repugnant to the fundamental idea of homoeopathy, but it renders quite unserviceable an a posteriori source for obtaining a knowledge of the actions of medicines. Two medicines, we believe, cannot act exactly alike, and our aim is to select the most appropriate one. When this is done it is quite superfluous to administer along with it the second less appropriate medicine. Were this to be given on account of some secondary symptoms it could only proceed from a want of diagnostic knowledge or from ignorance of the pathological relationship of the symptoms; in both instances, therefore, from false grounds. If the medicine we select is chosen in reference to the pathognomonic primary symptoms, then there is no occasion to give one at the same time for the secondary symptoms, which are dependent on the former. For the idea of disease, like the idea of organism, is a totality, a unity. But supposing two remedies were to possess exactly the same action, the only reason for giving the second would be in order to increase the power of the first, a practice utterly inexcusable when the same object could be obtained by increasing the dose of the first; and in the latter case, we should know for certain which medicine was instrumental in the cure. The employment of mixtures of medicines could, say Schron, only be admissible after the pure effects of such mixtures had been ascertained on the healthy.

It was in conformity with this last mentioned rule, that Dr. Molin (Journ. de Medorrhinum Hah. Dec.1840) thought of the employment of mixtures of our homoeopathic remedies, whereby he expected very good results would be gained to practical medicine; but as he knew that it was impossible, from the known effects of two simple medicines, to predict what should be the effect of these when conjoined, he proposed that they should be proved in combination, and actually carried his proposition into effect as regards a few substances. He tried namely, nux vomica in combination with sulphur, and belladonna in combination with aconite, on several persons, and thought he detected symptoms from their use, which were proper to each ingredient in the mixture. If there be any truth in the doctrine of antidotes, the results should have been nothing at all; for nux we are told is the antidote of sulphur, and belladonna the antidote of aconite. When the mixture heresy was first mooted, Dr. Griesselich (Freskogem., i. 178.) pointed out the necessity of instituting physiological experiments with the mixtures, and the at the same time he made a few trials with mixtures of globules on patients, but with no encouraging result. He shortly after this (Opium cit., ii 116; Hygea, vi. 519.) declared the whole business to be a retrograde step. Another modification of the mixture practice is what we find to prevail extensively in recorded histories of homoeopathic treatment, viz., the giving of one medicine internally, and the local application of a perfectly different one. Thus we often find arnica used externally as a lotion, and aconite or belladonna given the while alternately; and Mr. Leadam has detailed some cases in the tenth volume of the British Journal of Homoeopathy, where he gave some medicine, such as calcarea or lycopodium internally, while using a local application of calendula to the womb.

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.