Yet another variety of this practice is that proposed by Drs. Roux and Panthin at the Congress in Paris in 1851, and more recently by Dr. Gauwerky at the homoeopathic meeting at Dusseldorf, in 1853, to mix, namely, two or more different dilutions of the medicine together, in order that the patient might enjoy the advantages likely to flow from the use of both high and low dilutions.
I cannot help thinking that the mixture-practice, under whatever variety it presents itself, is a dangerous innovation on the simple prescriptions of Hahnemann, for we have not the slightest evidence to show that the action of a chemically compounded body will be at all like that of both the simple substances of which it is composed; that arsenite of lime, for instance, as Hering has proposed, will have the united effects of arsenic and lime, or that the iodide of mercury will exhibit the properties of iodine and mercury. All previous experience teaches us the reverse. How unlike in every respect is the neutral salt muriate of soda to its constituents, muriatic acid and soda; how different the effect of sulphuric acid and lime from those of their compound, sulphate of lime. Still less have we reason to believe that the mere admixture, without chemical combination, of different homoeopathic medicine will produce a tertium quid, having the united properties of both, especially if they be, as Dr. Molin proposed, substances of allied and therefore antidotal action. Each medicine, simple or compound, must be proved as to its effects on the healthy, before we can venture to give it with confidence to the sick, and any administration of the compounds, without first proving them, is nothing more nor less than crude empiricism; and yet not only has the administration of such chemical compounds been gravely proposed, without preliminary physiological proving, but the more mixture of our ordinary polychrests has been advised and practised. A homoeopathic practitioner once seriously informed me that his practice was to give in almost every case a mixture of several homoeopathic medicines, for he felt convinced that those were not suitable would not act, but only the one that was indicated, if it happened to be in the mixture. According to this plan, the most infallible method would be to make an universal medicine, by mingling together in certain proportions every known and unknown medicinal substance; and if the disease was subject to the power of medicine at all, his wonderful compound must inevitably cure it. In fact, such a plan was actually proposed some years ago by a homoeopathic dilettante, who gave the name of omnium to his delectable compound. He should methinks have rather termed it omnibus.
The next question that falls under our consideration is this-Are there any odes of treatment not strictly homoeopathic admissible or necessary in conjunction with the homoeopathic treatment? This question, which must be answered decidedly in the affirmative, might well form the subject of a separate lecture, but as it is not my intention to go into minute details respecting all the auxiliaries required, or available by the homoeopathist, I shall only cursorily allude to the various accessories that may be advantageously employed in certain cases.
Hahnemann was very shy of advising anything that could have the appearance of interfering with or superseding the employment of the homoeopathic medicines. However, we find that even he did not altogether refuse to resort to other methods in cases that required them. He recommended, (Organon, Aphorism 1xvii., note.) for instance, a resort to what he terms antipathic or palliative measures in urgent cases, where the danger to life is so great and imminent as to preclude the employment of the homoeopathic medicines; in cases, for example, of asphyxia and suspended animation from lightning, suffocation, freezing, drowning, etc. In such cases we should employ, he says, slight electric shocks, clysters of strong coffee, powerful perfumes, gradual application of heat, etc. etc. Also in cases of poisoning, the antidote, chemical or otherwise, should be used.
In a paper read before the German Homoeopathic Society, in 1830, (Translated in the Brit. Journ. of Homoeopathy, vol. xi.) and also in the first edition of the Chronic Diseases, he advises the employment of fine electric shocks in paralytic affections, and the application of a pitch- plaster to produce an eruption on the skin. In the second edition of the latter work, (Chron. Kr., I. 176.) however, and in the last edition of the Organon, he solemnly retracts this advice. In certain cases he advises the employment of animal magnetism, (Organon, 5th edit, Aphorism ccxciii., ccxciv.) in a very moderate manner, however. The Priessnitzian water-cure he sets his face against; (Brit. Journ. of Hom., vi. 416.) but he highly approves of certain appliances of the cold-water system for the cure of paralysed parts. The methods he alludes to are chiefly cold-water douches and shower-baths; and these he holds to be homoeopathic in their action, as he says cold water in its primary action causes partial insensibility and immobility of the parts it is applied to. (Chr. Kr., i. 176.) The auxiliary employment of some of the appliances of the so-called hydropathic system has met with much greater favour at the hands of many of Hahnemann’s disciples, and a great deal has been written upon the water-cure by homoeopathic practitioners; some of whom have attempted to refer its beneficial effects to its homoeopathic action, like Hahnemann; whilst one, a certain Dr. Starke, (Hygea, xv. 475.) attributes its influence to the infinitesimal quantity of silicea contained in suspension in spring water, a very far-fetched and utterly untenable idea, methinks. Others, whilst pointing out its advantages as a therapeutic agent, used either alone or in combination with homoeopathic treatment, have seen and stated that its effects cannot be generally ascribed to the homoeopathic principle. Among those of our body who have written on the water- cure I may direct your attention to the water-cure I may direct your attention to the essays of Kurtz, (Ueber d. Werth d. Heilm. d. Kalt. Wasser). Brutzer, (Allg. h. Ztg. xxx. 353.) Hampe, (Oewst Ztsch., i.2, 241.) Ott, (Hydrohomoeopathie.) and Ressel, (British Journal of Homoeopathy, vol. xi) by whom the subject has been pretty well exhausted. It is evident that the water-cure can from no alliance with allopathy, for the most distinguished hydropathic practitioners, in this country at least, either reject altogether the use of drugs, of only employ the homoeopathic remedies when they consider it requisite to have resort to medicinal treatment.
Some homoeopathists have expressed partial approbation of blood- letting in certain cases; but I confess I am unable to imagine its utility, except in these cases of plethoric individuals, where a bleeding at very short intervals has long been practised, and where the patient is threatened with untoward symptoms, from the want of his accustomed depletion. In such cases it might be dangerous to trust to a sudden stoppage of the periodical depletion, but of course we should only have to practise it at the commencement of our treatment; the beneficial change induced by the homoeopathic treatment would soon supersede the necessity of resorting to any such barbarous practice. It is a question if the homoeopathic apparatus of Dr. Junod, which Hahnemann occasionally employed, would not, even in such cases, enable to us dispense entirely with the abstraction of blood.
Among those homoeopathists who have given a qualified assent to the employment of blood-letting in certain exceptional cases I may mention Dr. Kretschtain exceptional cases I may mention Dr. Kretschmar, (Allg. h. Ztg., ii.) who considers that a small bleeding or the application of leeches may be advisable in cases of sudden inflammation of the brain or heart, in croup, and also in pneumonia. Dr. C. Hering (Domestic Physician.) counsels the application of a few leeches to this throat of children suddenly seized with croup, pending the arrival of a physician. Dr. Muller and Dr. Rummel (Allg. h. Ztg., ii.) both allowed the occasional necessity for blood-getting at the commencement of their homoeopathic practice; but the latter subsequently denied that if was ever necessary in those cases of acute inflammation where formerly he had supposed it might be useful, Dr. Rau was at first not sure that we could altogether dispense with blood-letting in acute inflammations, and in one of his works (Werth. dom. Heilv., 202) he actually details a case of inflammation of the lungs, which he treated with venesections and homoeopathic remedies; but at the same time he states that this was the last case in which he considered it necessary to resort to the practice, so that latterly he seems to have doubted altogether to its value under any circumstances. Professor Henderson (Homoeopathic Fairly Represented, p. 27.) says that he has occasionally deemed it expedient to resort to the local abstraction of blood in some acute diseases, in order “to facilitate that action of the homoeopathic remedies;” but it is very seldom that he has considered this necessary. Dr. Charge (Rev. hom. du Midi, i. 224.) considers that cases may occur, though only rarely and exceptionally, where blood-getting may be required. He says, “I willingly allow the lancet to rust in its case, but I do not break it.” On the other had, it has been shown Dr. J.W. Arnold, j Hygea, xxii.1.) that venesection has to claim to be considered an antiphlogistic. Drs. Elwert (Allg. h. Ztg., xxxiii.13.) and Schubert (Kann der genaue Kenner, etc. Pirna, 1838.) have written articles condemnatory of bleeding; and Dr. Ruckert (Allg. h. Ztg., ii.) replied to the article of Kretschmar formerly alluded to, denying the necessity, though admitting the antiphlogistic power of blood-letting.
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.