second theory and the allopathic method which it demands must both be false. But Eschenmeyer admits both methods to be true; it is therefore evident that neither of his pathological theories can be true. But I will go so far as to say, that neither the first theory implies a necessity for the homoeopathic employment of medicines, nor does the second theory imply the truth of their allopathic employment. Not a shadow of proof is offered that the homoeopathic remedy favours the reaction of the vital force, or that the allopathically employed remedy possesses the power of removing the obstruction to the proper action of the various organs. But I need not dwell longer on this monstrous idea.
Jahn,(System der Physiatrik) who, though no homoeopathists, wrote upon homoeopathy, admitting it as one of the therapeutic principles, also asserts that homoeopathic cures are to be attributed to an increase of the reaction of the organism against the disease; but unlike Eschenmeyer, who, in is first theory, ascribes them to the direct influence of the medicine upon the reactive processes, he says hey are owing to the medicine increasing the disease as a consequence of which the reactive processes are also increased. This, it will be observed, is not unlike Hahnemann’s last explanation, and the objections to which the latter is liable are equally applicable to this explanation; indeed, except in very slight affections, any increase of the disease must not only be foreign to the purpose of cure, but dangerous to the patient, for although the hypothetical disease of the desk may be increased or diminished at will, it is otherwise with the actual diseases as we find them in nature; these we generally discover to be quite strong enough and frequently too strong for us, and far from requiring to be increased in intensity, they tax our skill to contact the natural tendency they often have to rise to a dangerous height.
Dr. Sachron’s u (Naturheilprocesse and Heilmethode, ii.Aphorism 166-173) theory, which, both on account of the acknowledged learning of its author and the ingenious arguments he adduced in its support, gained the adhesion of a large portion of the homoeopathic world of Germany, may be briefly stated as follows. The disease is a joint product of the noxious agent and the reacting vitality (Seele); therefore the decease is not something apart from the vitality, but is something apart from the vitality, but is something called into existence by it. It is not conceivable that the vitality, as an agent producing the disease, can react against the quale produced by he joint operation of itself and the noxious agent, seeing that this quale is partly a result of its reaction. The effort of the vitality is directed to the removal of the noxious influence, and this effort is manifested by the various reactive processes. It is quite comprehensible that it should stand in aid of support and assistance in those effort. This assistance it cannot give itself. By an irritation from without, similar to the morbid state, a reaction is produced, which being directed both against this new irritation and against the morbid process (which has the same directions the new irritation), endeavors to remove both by neutralizing them.
These are, as nearly as possible, Dr. Schron’s own words, and this explanation, I imagine, involves a self-evident contradiction. According to it, the reaction of he organism against the morbific agent is the disease, and this disease is to be cured by exciting increased reaction of the same kind, in
other words increased disease. We are left completely in the dark as to how the increased reaction produced by the medicinal agent is to cure or neutralize, as Dr. Schron has it, both the reaction against the morbific agent and itself, Like all the theories where the reaction of the organism, as it is called, plays such a distinguished part, this explanation goes on the supposition that those morbid symptoms which are called reactive, but which are really the only cognizable symptoms of the disease, are an attempt at a curative process on the part of the organism, which is unfortunately too feeble to effect its purpose, viz., the cure of the disease, until assisted by the homoeopathic medicine. But supposing these premises true, what an odd way of strengthening the reaction is it to increase the intensity of the disease! This is still for all the world precisely the same thing as Hahnemann’s proposition strengthening the hands of his ally, by sending the reinforcements of sham men to the enemy, with this difference, that Schron would send regiments of real not sham men; and indeed Schron will have it that all that the homoeopathic medicines does is to hasten the disease through its various stages, and by no means to extinguish the morbid process. According to his theory, however, this treatment should likewise have the effect of increasing the intensity while it diminishes the duration of the stages of disease, a result scarcely to be desired in any instance, and one the reverse of what experience teaches us does actually take place. The premises I believe to be false to begin with, and the whole argument based upon them is consequently false. The so-called reaction is not a curative effort of the organism but a morbid process, and nothing but a morbid process. The sleeplessness that follows the soporific effects of opium is clearly a reaction, such as our author understands a reaction, but none would call it a curative attempt the constipation that follows diarrhoea is reaction, but not curative; the heat follows cold, and the cold that follows heat are reactions, but not curative; all are equally morbid, and the object of therapeutics is not to promote any morbid process, but to put a stop to all.
In Hufeland’s Enchiridion x (American Translation, p.20) I find the Nastier of medicine giving a similar explanation of the homoeopathic cure.
“Even the direct cure of diseases by specifics so called,” says he, “is the work of a nature; for the remedy used acts only as an excitative, and the reaction it awakens and the alternation for the better are solely owing to the internally working power of nature. Thus far also homoeopathy, which claims so high a stand over nature, is the best proof of her power, for Hahnemann’s doctrine is nothing more than a method of curing diseases by specifics; and in selecting such a remedy as will create a disease similar to that which already exists, affecting the very organ diseased. Excites the reaction of nature is this apart, and produces that internal curative process which heals the disease.”
This is essentially the same explanation as that given by Schron and others, and it may be observed that this or something like that is the necessary theory of those pathologists in whose creed the vis medicatrix nature plays the part of an omnipotent divinity, who look upon all the symptoms of disease as the manifestation of her struggles, and whose chief aim it is to discover what direction these struggles are taking, and to aid and abet them by every means in their power. This creed I
believe it is that has then rise to that meddling and mischievous treatment of diseases by purgatives, blisters, setons, diaphoretics, diuretics, and even blood-lettings, the ill-success of which failed to demonstrate to physicians the fallacy of their theories. “Imitate and assist nature,” they cried; and if disease were occasionally observed to terminate, when let along, with so-called critical diarrhoeas, diaphoresis, diuresis, ptyalism, cutaneous eruptions, abscesses, and hemorrhages, they imagined these phenomena were in some mysterious manner the cause of cure, and that it they imitated them they would be assisting nature and accelerating he cure; and accordingly they bled, blistered, sweated, salivated, and purged, and if the patient died, as he was like to do under such treatment, they felt convinced that he had not been blistered, sweated, salivated, purged, or bled enough, no did it ever occur to the that they could be in error with respect to the value, in a curative point of view, they attached to those so-called crises that occasionally occurred in he natural course of diseases or by consequence to their artificial imitation of them. (Though occasionally the ill-success of this treatment might almost have led them to exclaim with the illustrious doctor of Valladolid:
– “Si je n’etois pas aussi sur de mes principes que je le suis, je croirosis mes remedies contraries a presque toutes les maladies que je traite.” (Gil Blas, liv.ii., Chap.5.))
In my next lecture I shall bring under your notice and subject freely to criticism a few more of the explanations that have been offered of the curative process, and endeavor to lay before you one free from the objections which I shall have to make to those hitherto attempted.
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.