Let not this Association harbor or endorse in any way, even by absence of rebuke, any form of false teaching. Let it be distinctly understood that we do fully and honestly believe, collectively and individually, the resolutions of this Association, as adopted. We have declared that these resolutions “completely and fully represent the therapeutic opinion and practice” of this Association. Let it be shown to the outside world that we mean what we have said. We do most assuredly believe Hahnemann’s Organon of the Heating Art to be the only true guide in therapeutics. Let us not, then, tolerate any teaching, which seeks to pervert or abridge this master-work in any way. We have asserted, as our belief, that the only true guide for a prescription is the totality of the symptoms and the proven drug. Let us not, then, prescribe upon any other basis; it cannot be Homoeopathic nor wise to do so. We cannot allow to be true any teaching which seeks to controvert this fundamental principle of Homoeopathic practice. He who recommends the building of therapeutics upon any new theory or upon any other basis than that prescribed by this law, is no Homoeopath and has no fellowship in this Association. Successful practice cannot be based upon pathological theories. Whether these theories teach one to prescribe for a pathological condition or for a presumed dyscrasia, it matters not; both are un-homoeopathic and both are unsuccessful.
The adoption of drug proving by Hahnemann, first introduced two great features into medicine, and these are certainty and prevision. We are sure a drug will cure in the sick such symptoms as it has produced upon the healthy; we are enabled by this certainty to predict, before the trial of a drug, what it will cure. For these grand features of its art, medicine is indebted to Samuel Hahnemann-see to it that no fault of ours destroys his noble work. In short, it is to be remembered that the basis of a homoeopathic prescription is the symptoms of the patient, the question of the dose is secondary. The size of the dose can never make the remedy homoeopathic in this case.
In this matter of dose, some err upon one side and some upon the other. So we see that while some believe an imperfectly selected drug may be made to do the work of the perfect similimum if it be “pushed” or exhibited in crude doses; on the other hand, we find some who are disposed to assent to almost any prescription so it be given “high” enough. Both these parties are in error. While we cannot dogmatize upon this question of dose, all here will agree that the better selection, i. e., the nearer we come to the perfect similimum, the less medicine we need give. This proposition may be stated again in other words. It is the experience of our best prescribers that the similimum will cure most cases best if given high and in one dose, or at most a few doses. Indeed, experience tells us that the high potencies are always best; this is experience, however, and not law. But the converse of this proposition is not true, that a badly selected drug may be made to do good work by giving much of it. This idea is the cause of most of the mongrelism of the day.
In published reports of clinical cases, we find evidence of the necessity for careful examination of the patient. Hahnemann laid the greatest stress upon this examination, telling us how to do it, and saying, in effect, that a patient well examined was half cured. Unless this careful examination be made, one cannot get all those peculiar characteristic symptoms which Hahnemann has declared must be the deciding symptoms. All cases have many symptoms, which are to be found under many drugs, and are hence of little value in deciding our choice of a remedy. Each case should have, and probably does have, some peculiar symptoms; these we are to get. These we must get; and our examination of a patient is incomplete so long as we possess only a list of common and general symptoms. It should be our task to question and examine the patient until such peculiar symptoms are found. We hear much complaint of the insufficiency of our Materia Medica, of the uselessness of our repertories, but most generally the failure to prescribe correctly and even easily is not due to the want of good books, but to this lack of careful and thoughtful examination of the patient. Forget, not this, that the greatest cures the world has ever witnessed have been made by the earlier Homoeopaths with a much less complete library than we now possess. After selecting the proper remedy, we must not forget that it is of prime importance to give it in proper dose, and not to change too soon nor to repeat too frequently. Never change a remedy unless the changed symptoms call for another; never repeat the dose (or change remedy) when the patient is improving. For a fuller and a better understanding of the true healing art, you are to study and to restudy the Organon. Our purpose in these few, remarks has not been to teach this art, but merely to call attention to a few salient points; to give admonition upon a few prominent features which cannot be too steadily kept in view.
This Association, it has been said, was organized for an especial purpose, and that purpose was to promulgate and develop Homoeopathy. In pursuance of this work, the purifying and completing of the Materia Medica must be our chief concern. It is the foundation of our art. Our Materia Medica once corrupted and perverted, clinical success becomes impossible. We may again take warning by the fate of the American Institute, for it, too, started forty odd years ago, to do this same work, and for some years the Institute did good service in this study. But as it grew Eclectic, the Institute became enamored of the false siren named progressive science, and all truth was abandoned. Let us beware lest a like fate overtake this Association.
The Materia Medica is to be developed by careful and thorough provings of new drugs; we repeat, careful and thorough provings, for most of the modern provings are worthless, having been carelessly and improperly made. One is afraid to prescribe upon them; afraid to trust valuable lives to such careless work. How differently do we feel when we prescribe one of the old, reliable remedies. Then security begets quiet reliance and success crowns our efforts. At our last meeting, a good beginning was made in this study of the Materia Medica, and your bureau gives promise of great usefulness and interest for this meeting. In all of our work we must strive to emulate the energy and zeal of Hahnemann and of his early disciples; they were indeed masters. Nowhere does one’s knowledge of therapeutics and medical ability show forth to better advantage than in this proving of drugs and revising the Materia Medica. To do it well the best talent and the greatest zeal are required, but this need not deter us from the work, for ability and zeal are easily to be found in our ranks.
The Materia Medica is to be enriched by clinical observations, and here also we may again take pattern by Hahnemann’s careful work. The admission of clinical symptoms into our Materia Medica must be done with the greatest caution. They can only be incorporated after the most searching inquiry, and then should always be so marked that we can tell the clinical from the pathogenetic. The hasty and inconsiderate adoption of clinical symptoms is certainly an evil; and if pursued to any great extent will render the Materia Medica unreliable. Every practitioner is not a reliable judge of the value of a clinical confirmation. Even reliable clinical confirmations need only be noted when peculiar or characteristic; of common, general symptoms we have an abundance.
The clinical symptom is only admissible to fill up the gaps left by imperfect provings, or in cases where provings cannot be obtained. Though some of the best symptoms now in use are of clinical origin, as a general rule they cannot be considered as certain and reliable as the pathogenetic.
Besides the provings of drugs and the careful, conscientious noting of clinical symptoms, we can also do a useful work in marking clinical verifications of pathogenetic symptoms. A symptom produced upon a healthy person and cured in a sick person becomes doubly reliable.
There can be no doubt about the value of such symptoms.
The most dangerous manner of perpetuating Homoeopathic truth is to mix it with uncertainty or mystery. There are some things about the art of healing that pertain to the scientific, of which not one is more important than the proven drug. A member may state that he has, cured somebody with an unproved drug, and he may fail to demonstrate the homoeopathicity of the so-called cure, because of the lack of evidence that can only be obtained from the provings. There are many good things involved in mystery that the time is not ripe to discuss them. The relations of Homoeopathy to them must be first demonstrated or this organization cannot recognize them. The Allopathist reports cures on unsupported opinion, and we reject these because he has no demonstration. If this same Allopathist reports a cure of vomiting by Ipecac, the Homoeopathist can accept it as a real cure, because it is what can be expected. Experiment as you may on the healthy with new medicines, the sick man demands a remedy for his sickness the likeness of which has been found in a pathogenesis.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.