Had the plan of this course of lecture permitted it, there are many other subjects connected with homoeopathy which might have engaged our attention, such as the comparative advantages of Homoeopathy and allopathy, the statistics of both methods, and the objections raised against our system by the allopathists, together with the ethical relation of the rival schools; but these subjects, each of which would have required an entire lecture for its consideration, would have been rather misplaced
in a course of this kind. I believe I have touched on (imperfectly, in many instances, it may be) every point of practical and theoretical importance relating to the homoeopathic system of medicine, and I shall now bring this course of lectures to a close by recapitulating, in a very brief summary, the chief points that have engaged our attention during the past weeks.
The three cardinal points of the homoeopathic system that are acknowledged by all the disciples of Hahnemann, however they may differ in other matters, are-
1. The proving of medicines on the healthy, in order to ascertain their pure pathogenetic effects.
2. The administration of he medicines so proved, according to he therapeutic maxim expressed in the phrase similia similibus curentur.
3.The administration of the proved medicines according to this principle, singly and along.
All who hold these articles of faith and practices accordingly are homoeopathists, and acknowledge as their master the great Medical Reformer of the nineteenth century, Samuel Hahnemann.
I have shown, in the course of my lectures, that the most rational views on the subject of pathology lead to the recognition of the homoeopathic therapeutic principles as the only plausible guide in the administration of the curative agents termed medicines; that the recognition of this principle as our therapeutic guide involves the necessity for proving medicines, according to the method laid down by Hahnemann, and that the practice of giving but one medicine at a time is a necessary corollary from the other two maxims. I have endeavored to show that the empirical system of treating by specifics, which has obtained to a certain extent in medicine from the earliest times, is nothing more than an unwitting practice of a rude homoeopathy, and that all the methods of medicinal treatment which possess a real value are referable, in a greater or less degree, to the same principle.
In my examination of the peculiarities of the system of Hahnemann I have attempted, with what success it is for you to determine, to discriminate the essentials from the non- essentials of the Hahnemannic doctrine, and I have never hesitated out of respect to the authority of Master, to show where I believed him to be in error with respect to the accessories of the homoeopathic system.
In many theoretical points I have dissented from the views of Hahnemann, more especially in regard to his explanation of the curative process, his doctrine of chronic diseases, and his theory of the dynamization of medicines. In all these matters Hahnemann may be proved to be in error, and yet the truth of the great therapeutical principle with which his name is for ever associated is left unaffected; and it is my belief that the more correct our views are respecting physiology, pathology, and pharmacodynamics, the more irresistibly will the truth of the homoeopathic therapeutic principle force itself upon our convictions, and the better will we be able to produce a conviction of its truth in the minds of our misbelieving colleagues
I am very far from agreeing with those homoeopathic practitioner who see in the doctrines of Hahnemann a perfect and unimprovable system of medicine on the contrary, I believe there is much, very much still to be done. Medicine is and ever must be a progressive science, and though Hahnemann has, by the brilliant discoveries of his genius, given it a gigantic push for wards, the desired goal of treating diseases tuto, cito et. jucunde is not yet fully reached. There are still vast difficulties attending the selection of the remedy; the rule for the administration of the appropriate dose remains yet to be discovered; the best periods for the repetition of the medicine are still uncertain, and there are still many diseases that are not amenable to the very best treatment.
Let us not, then, rest contented with what has been done, but let us each ask ourselves what is still to do, and let each contribute his mite towards the great work of reformation, so promisingly commenced by Hahnemann.
Many of the medicines contained in our Materia Medica are still but imperfectly known; these must be subjected to careful and patient physiological experimentation. Many of the best-proved medicines present to our examination a sad jumble and confusion of symptoms; let it be our endeavor to construct order out of the disorder, and to ascertain the natural groupings of the symptoms that are woefully dissociated from their natural connections. The storehouse of nature still contains many powerful medicinal substance, which are to us a sealed book, because we are entirely ignorant of their pathogenetic actions let us carefully test them in reference to their physiological effects- we shall thereby be enriching our treasury of curative agents, and rendering a service to suffering humanity. Much may be done for our art by the individual experience of each of us; let us, then, mutually communicate the knowledge we have obtained by our several observations. Medicine, even though it has a guiding principle, must still remain to a certain extends an empirical art, and none gifted with common powers of observations and engaged in active practice can avoid learning something which is not known to all the rest. If every new fact, every new truth discover, every corroboration of others’ observations, were at once made common property by being communicated to all, we should soon be in possession of a mass of materials that would tend ever more and more to diminish the uncertainty of practice, and render our art more perfect. An experimental or empirical art, like that of medicine is ever progressive, and as a noble edifice is but a collection of paltry bricks and stones, so it is the accumulation of mammy small ad individually trivial details that will gradually advance our art to perfection. Accurate and truthful observation in medicine is difficult, but not impossible. It has too frequently happened that medical men have recorded as facts the wild imagining of their own fantastic brains and, I am sorry to say, homoeopathy is not free from such unfortunate delusions; indeed it would be wonderful were it otherwise, for every novelty is apt to draw towards it the visionaries and the speculative quidnuncs, who set up as prophets and teachers, and are sure to draw crowds of admirers after them, who seem to be fascinated by the very absurdity and wildness of the doctrines broached. We have seen how the monstrous isopathic heresy for awhile seduced a number of the flighty minds amongst us, and more recently we have seen a crowd of respectable practitioners lending a willing ear to the vagaries of a lunatic horse-trainer. These extravagances flourish for a time and are speedily forgotten; but the small kernel of truth that they may contain remains, and gradually assumes its proper place in subordination to the great truth which they happily at one time threatened to extinguish. The history of these heretical aberrations should teach us to weigh well and carefully our own observations, lest we, too, be seduced to jump to general conclusions from insufficient data, and damage the cause we wish to promote by hasty and untenable assertions. In a new science like homoeopathy the ground is all unexplored, and we must grope our way with care and caution, lest we stray in a wrong direction, and hopelessly lose ourselves in the unknown forest, where, from want of landmarks and loadstars, we may find it difficult to retrace our steps, and may not succeed in doing so, without suffering considerably from the thorns and briers that beset our path.
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.