A similar idea seems to have occurred to Dr. Gastier of Thoissey, who wrote a special (De la Prophylaxis en general, ec., 1852) work on the subject of prophylaxis. Although his object is chiefly to preserve from chronic disease, he nevertheless also makes allusion to the prophylaxis of epidemic disease, on which subject, however, he adds nothing to our knowledge. As regards chronic disease, he starts with the idea that they originate from the psoric miasm, in most cases transmitted by the parents to their offspring. When there is reason to suspect such a hereditary psoric constitution in an infant, which in later life would become developed into different dyscrasias, he recommends that the child he subjected to an antipsoric prophylactic treatment, consisting of an succession of the so-called antipsoric remedies. The course the recommends is an follows:_1, sulphur: 2, sepia; 3, carbo vegetables; 4, arsenicum; 5, belladonna; 6, lachesis; 7, nitric acid; 8, silica 9, thuja; 10, lycopodium; 11, graphites; 12, calcarea; 13, phosphorus, A dose of each of these medicines, consisting of one- globule of the 30the dilution, is to be administered to the child every fifth day until the course is finished, unless there should occur after any one of them an eruption on the skin, in which case the course is to be interrupted until this artificial eruption has gone off. If no eruption take place the preservation is, says Gastier, equally certain; but, in order to make assurance doubly sure, he recommends that the course be repeated every year. The medicines in the above course may, Dr. Gastier remarks, be given either by the mouth of by olfaction.
Dr. Fearon (Brit. Journ. of Hom. ix) has favoured us with his views on the necessity for pursuing a course of preventive treatment in case of suspected constitutional tendency to disease, not only in the very earliest infancy, but also from the very moment of conception, when that can be ascertained. In the latter case, he of course intends that the constitutional treatment of the course intends that the constitution treatment of the foetus shall be through the system of the mother. He does not enter into any detail respecting the constitutional preventive treatment to be adopted, still less does he lay done a list of medicines to be given, like Drs. Winter and Gastier. His essay is well worth perusal, on account of some peculiar and ingenious gives he unfolds respecting he detection of latent disease, more particularly by certain peculiarities in the iris. If his views on this subject should be corroborated, he will have added a very useful aid to our diagnosis of obscure and as yet undeveloped disease.
The subject of Prophylaxis is one of considerable moment, and has not yet been sufficiently developed. If we can, by means of the homoeopathic principle, discover preventives for such disease as scarlatina and cholera morbus, the discovery of medicinal preventives to be feasible. As yet I cannot say that such preventives have been discovered for it is by no means supported by evidence that pulsatilla or aconite protect from measles, hydrophobic saliva from hydrophobia, varioline, taken internally, from small-pox, or potentized itch-matter from scabies. That we shall ultimately succeed in discovering more prophylactics for fixed disease I do not doubt; in the meantime it cannot be said that we have advanced in this direction beyond the point Hahnemann brought us to.
As regards the so- called prophylactic treatment of infants suspected of hereditary taints, assuredly there is a great deal to be done; but I doubt very much if theocracies of medicine advised to be given to infants by Drs. Winter and Gastier would be of much use. I am of opinion that the best plan to adopt with infants is to place them in the best hygienic conditions and not to resort to medicinal interference until we see something to treat; and it will often happen that we may obtain a correct knowledge of the peculiar diathesis of a child from very trivial signs during the first weeks or months of it slid, and he enabled, by the administration of the appropriate remedies, to check such diatheses, as it were, in the bud. If the mother is unhealthy during the gestation of the child, we should devote great attention to her treatment, as by rendering her heal their we may greatly influence for good the constitution of the foetus, that derives its sole nutriment from her. To fix on a certain definite course of medicines that is to be crammed down every suspected infant’s throat, is a more senseless procedure than the inevitable spoonful of castor-oil, with which our midwives are wound to lubricate the ailment arcana or each tiny morsel of humanity as soon as it is ushered into this inhospitable world.
The next subject that shall occupy our attention this evening is that of diet and regimen.
The science of dietetics admits of two great divisions, to wit, the dietetics of the healthy and the dietetics of those that are ill. The physician must be prepared to advise in both these departments, for a good system of dietetics for the healthy is necessary in order to ward off disease; in other words, it is useful in prophylactic point of view. As, however, there is nothing peculiar to homoeopathy in the dietetics of the healthy, I need not dwell upon that divisions of the subject, but proceed at once to the dietetics of the sick, respecting which it is generally believed homoeopathy offers some remarkable peculiarities. Indeed, those of our adversaries who recognize the success of the homoeopathic method are constantly in the habit or referring that success to the excellent system of dietetics enforced on all homoeopathic patients, which, however, they will not adopt, nor been take the trouble to inquire into; whilst those who wish to frighten patients from homoeopathy are in the habit of making a terrible hunger of our dietetics, and representing it as a system of starvation, or, at all events, of the deprivation of all those little creature-comforts which many believe so necessary to their existence. we shall presently see how much truth there is in either of these representations.
Hahnemann early set his face against the pedantic rules of the would-be scientific dietists, and in an admirable little popular paper, published in 1792, (he argues very sensibly that the instincts of the stomach are to be attends to for the regulation of the food to be put into it, both in health and in disease. He distinguishes carefully betwixt the true natural instincts of the stomach and those perverted and depraved desires that are incident to the victim of over -indulgence and gluttony. He laughs at the idea of any standard or normal system of diet for all, been those in health and insists on adapting the diet to the constitution and digestive powers of each individual.
A Few years later he again recurs to this important subject, in an essay addressed to his professional brethren. (Ibid., p. 359) Here he again ridicules the attempt to fix upon a standard system of diet,. “A universal diet, ” he says, “like a universal medicine is an idle dream.” He illustrates the folly of a too strict system of diet by two cases, which it is worth while to read to you. “I once,” he writes, “knew an ignorant over- officious practitioner prescribe such a severe diet to a healthy young woman after a favorable first labour, that she was on the eve of starvation. She held up for some days under this water- gruel diet all meat, beer, wine, coffee, bread, butter, nourishing vegetables, etc., were denied her, but at last she grew excessively weak, complained of agonizing after-pains, was sleepless, costive, and, in short, dangerously ill.
The medical attendant attributed all this to some infraction of his dietetic rules. She begged to be allowed some coffee, broth, or something of the kind. The practitioner strong in his principles was inflexible -not a drop! Driven to desperation by his severity and her hunger, she indulged her innocent longings, drank coffee, and ate in moderation whatever she fancied. The practitioner found her, at his next visit, much to his surprise, not only out of danger, nut lively and refused; so he complacently noted down in his memorandum-book the excellent effects of slop-diet in the treatment of lying-in women. The convalescent took good care not to hint to him her very natural transgression of his rules. This is the history of many, even published observations! Thus the disobedience of the patient not unfrequently saves the credit of he physician.”
The next case shows the necessity of not depriving a patient of anything that long habit had rendered perhaps indispensable. “A country midwife fell sick of gastric fever. I purged her; I ordered her for drink water and very small beer, and extreme moderation in eating. At first, things went on very well; but after a few days, a new continued fever, with thirst, wakefulness, weariness, confusion of ideas, came on to such an extends as to render her state dangerous. I left none of the ordinary remedies untried; all in vain. I now left off everything, from the sulfuric acid to the soup and promised to prescribe something on my return. I informed the relatives of the danger I apprehended. The following day I was told that the patient was recovering, and that my services were no longs required. To my astonishment. I saw her pass my window a few days afterwards, perfectly recovered. I subsequently learned that when I had discontinued the medicine, a quack had been called in, who had given her a large bottle of essence of wood, his universal medicine, and told her to take so many drops of it. No sooner had she taxed the brandy in it, than she gained, as it were, new life. She took the drops by tablespoonfuls, and after a good sleep she rose completely curd.” In the same paper he remarks that it is much less frequently necessary than is generally supposed to make a material alternation in the diet of patients suffering from chronic diseases and that in acute diseases the awakened instinct of the patient is often considerably wiser than the physician. He deprecates frequent or extensive changes in the diet whilst we are giving medicine; and relates the case of an old gentleman affected with ulcers of the legs, of long standing, who was a great bon-vivant and drank a quantity of spirits, whom he cured without making and change in his diet whatever.
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.