Selection of the Remedy



Dr. Mosthaff (Die Hom. in ihrer Bedeutung.) says that it is not a mere superficial similarity betwixt the symptoms of the disease and of the drug that we are to be guided by; he acknowledges the similarity as an important but by no means the sole point to be attended to in the selection of the remedy.

Dr.Peterson of Pensa, whose name I have already had occasion to mention more than once in the course of these lectures, as he has written largely, if not lucidly, on many points in connection with homoeopathy, has given us his ideas on the subject of the choice of the remedy. (Arch., xiv) He calls attention to the great difference in the intensity of the symptoms observed from the proving of drugs and those that occur in natural diseases, and admits that the contents of the Materia Medica of Hahnemann offer a vast array of unimportant and paltry- looking symptoms; but he reminds us that we are not to search in the Materia Medica for exact correspondence, as far as the intensity of symptoms is concerned, to the phenomena of natural diseases. In our mind we must always represent to ourselves the symptoms in the Materia Medica as much greater than they really are, and the symptoms of the natural disease as much less intense then they occur. In this way we shall be able to find more exact correspondences than otherwise offer themselves. He proposes to supply the deficiencies of the Materia Medica, by adding those symptoms we observe to occur in the course of an acute disease when the medicine has not been perfectly homoeopathically chosen. Such symptoms, not being the same as those the disease presented before the employment of the medicine, are to be attributed to the action of the drug, even although they are not to be found in its provings, and are capable of being developed in the healthy subject. These symptoms he advises to be added unhesitatingly to the pathogenesis of the medicine, and he also, contrary to the advice of Hahnemann, advises to add also to the pathogenesis those symptoms that have disappeared under the use of the medicine. By these two very impure sources we might doubtless soon extend the pathogenesy of a medicine to the dimensions of a thick volume, but I doubt very much if the difficulties attending the selection of the drug would be at all diminished; on the contrary, with such a mass of doubtful symptoms they would necessarily be very much increased. I sincerely trust that no ignes fatui, delusively promising us greater facilities in the choice of the drug, like these of Dr. Peterson, will ever tempt us to deprive our Materia Medica of its title of pure, and lead us astray into the quagmires of uncertainty and impurity. Dr. Peterson does not allude to the necessity acknowledged by the other writers on this subject, of endeavouring to ascertain the characteristic points in the symptoms of drug and disease.

Hirschel (Die homoeopathie, p. 145.) says the indications for the selection of a remedy are derived-1, from the complex of the symptoms of the disease, particular attention being paid to the primary, idiopathic, pathognomonic, and diagnostic signs (diagnosis and semiology); 2, from the affected systems or organs (anatomico-physiological foundation); 3, from the morbid process, its character, history, and stage (physiological foundation); 4, from the internal aetiological circumstances on which the disease depends (proximate cause), as far as this can be ascertained (aetiology); 5, from the external exciting causes, even when these are very remote (e.g., in chronic disease, dyscrasic maladies) (aetiology); 6, from the peculiarities of the individual diseased in reference to constitution, moral condition, temperament, mode of life, etc; 7, from the peculiarities of the atmospheric and telluric influences in respect to weather, temperature, time of the year and day, prevailing endemic and epidemic diseases; 8, from the particular modifications produced in the morbid symptoms by external and internal influences, such as motion, position, open air, mental exertion, certain functional acts, as eating, drinking, etc. Hirschel remarks that homoeopathy has this advantage in simplicity over the old system, that there are no contraindications for the employment of medicine to be considered in it. It only knows indications. Every medicine that does not possess the quality of similarity as regards the disease is simply not indicated, and should not be administered. There can be no contraindications for the employment of a medicine which presents the necessary similarity in respect of its pathogenetic effects to the symptoms of the disease.

Dr. Hering of Philadelphia, the most prolific of homoeopathic authors, one who has written, we may fairly say, de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis, for he has in his voluminous writings treated as well of things that are not as of things that are, among the oceans of whose exuberant rhapsodies we often perceive an under- current of plain common sense, a vein of the pure gold of truth in the otherwise unprofitable quartz-mountain of hypothesis, which will often amply, repay the labour of digging it out- Dr. Hering, I say, has touched upon the subject of the choice of the remedy, without, however, throwing much light upon it. He tells us (Arch., xv. 1). that it is the concordance in the characteristic symptoms that must guide us in the selection of the remedy. Pathology, he says must teach us the peculiarities or characteristics of disease and cases of disease; iamatology must teach us those of the medicine. We should complimenting Dr. Hering at the expense of truth were we to say that we had gained a great accession of wisdom from this advice. Hering has, however, written an excellent essay on the study of the Materia Medica, the most important of studies in enabling us to select the proper remedy, which I can heartily recommend to your careful consideration. It is translated in the second volume of the British Journal of Homoeopathy.

That eminent repertory-manufacturer, Herr von. Boenninghausen (N. Archiv, i. 1, 84 et seq.) of Munster gives us his view on this subject. He observes, that most likely all homoeopathists, on first commencing the study of the system, felt as he did, that the pathogenesis of almost every medicine contained the elements of almost every disease under the sun. It is only by a comparison of the different pathogeneses among each other, and particularly by comparing them with actual cases of disease, that we see how erroneous was our first idea. He says that by a comparison of the remedies one with another we soon begin to perceive remedies one with another we soon begin to perceive their differences or their peculiarities, and from their peculiarities we gain the only just idea of their therapeutic employment. The very prover of a remedy may not at first observe or be able to distinguish what are the peculiar and characteristic symptoms of the medicine he had carefully proved. Thus Dr. Franz, he says in the preface to his proving of asafoetida makes no mention of what are the peculiar and characteristic symptoms of this medicine, which Boenninghausen declares to be-pains shooting from within outwards, generally of a burning character, obtuse, and intermitting. This character of the pains is, says he, a better indication for the use of this drug than the particular seat of such pains. Thus asafoetida does not show such pains in the nose ears, lips chin, teeth, etc; but Boenninghausen would not feel the slightest hesitation in giving this medicine for that sort of pain occurring in any part not noticed in the proving, the character of the pain being in his opinion of more importance than its seat. Another important point to be attended to in the choice of the remedy is, that the conditions under which the disease-symptoms occur should correspond with those under which the medicinal symptoms are observed. The conditions he here alludes to are the period of the day, the position of the body and other circumstances. These conditions he attaches great weight to, and makes them often constitute the characteristics of the medicine. These views of Boenninghausen’s we observe to give a colouring to all the works, such as repertories, manuals, and other aids to practice which have issued from his prolific pen, and we notice that his example has influenced not only his copier Jahr, but also Ruckert and Cl. Muller in their Repertoriums. In all these works the character of the pain or symptom is put forward more prominently than its exact seat, and in many of them the condition under which the symptoms occur likewise occupy a more important place. This I believe to be a mistake, which, though pardonable in unprofessional individuals like Boenninghausen and Jahr, whose whole medical education was obtained from the writings of Hahnemann, ought not to have occurred in the works of well- educated medical men like Ruckert and Muller. As regards the selection of the remedy on account of the accordance of the condition under which the medicinal and disease symptoms occur, Boenninghausen carries this to a most extravagant length, so far, indeed, that he occasionally loses sight altogether of the symptoms, and looks for a resemblance in the condition solely. To show you how he does this, I shall give you a specimen from one of his last works.

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.