On September 24th, 1832, dr. H.A. Weber, of Lich, wrote to Hahnemann:
I made the acquaintance of Mr. von Boenninghausen at Munster. and to my great joy I found that he was a learned and valiant supporter of homoeopathy. Your preface (on the smelling of medicines — R.H) contains a great deal that is very important for us.
Dr. Gross: Juterbogk, 31.10.’32
The more I read your preface to Boenninghausen’s Repertory, the more I rejoice about this wonderful wealth of experiences.
Dr. Hermann Lovy to Hahnemann:
Prague, April, 5th, 1833.
The most important progress in our science is undoubtedly contained in your preface to Boenninghausen’s repertory, which is well suited to adorn your old head already crowned with fame with new laurels. The marked tendency to increase the curative effects of the remedies without any risk for the patients has been well demonstrated and explained in it. Experience has already shown me that homoeopathy attained infinitely more in this way: I also find that the practice has become more difficult, so that I am vacillating in my actions.
(He submits several cases with detailed reports also, in later letters.)
ON ALLOWING THE MEDICINES TO ACT,AND REPEATING THE DOSE.
W. Gross wrote to Hahnemann:
Juterbogk, the Ist of the VI.1832 (when sending his book on the mineral waters of Teplitz):
When I received the material for this work a year and a half ago I could not reconcile the use of strong medicinal waters with your teaching on the use of other homoeopathic remedies. But now when you advise your pupils to give the antipsoric remedies in the — doses, and repeat them every day, I find that the use of those mineral sources is quite consistent. I have, on your kind advice, made several attempts of that kind with patients, and found that such increased doses act much better than before, but in certain cases, I found that several dosed did not agree, even when they were given with much longer intervals between the doses. I am moreover not yet quite clear how many doses are to be given generally, and how long after the last dose we are to wait for results. It would, therefore, be very desirable for the homoeopathic medical world that you should kindly publish your opinions regarding this new method of using medicines. I should have said something definite about it long ago, if I had more experience of it, and knew that it would be agreeable to you. I consider a public intimation concerning this new experience all the more necessary, because I fear that the sham homoeopaths will anticipate us, and will say something on this subject which will confuse the beginners, and do more harm in a way than a mischievous attack from our opponents. For instance I fear that Trinks, Hartlaub and others intend to print their opinions on the subject. As far as I have heard the former practises homoeopathy in such a way that one does not known whether he is a homoeopath, allopath, or a combination of both. Highly potentised remedies are ridiculous to him, as he only uses Aconite against pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs) in drops of the 10,000, and generally everything in drops and laughs at our globules. We must oppose such fools. Should you therefore think it necessary that your new discovery on the repetition of medicines should come before the world pure and clear, hasten to make it known, or allow me to do it if you have not the time. If you are confident that I can reproduce your ideas in a pure and unadulterated way, allow me to publish something on the subject, when of course I shall ask you to kindly supplement my very limited experience with your larger one, and to correct the opinions therefrom.
Dr. C.G. Franz to Hahnemann:
Leipsic, July 20th,1834.
I could sometimes jump out of my skin when I see how much it (homoeopathy) is abused by egoism, and how the pure teaching is distorted. It frightened me, when during my journey (to and from Plauen to his parents — R.H) I found out how thoughtlessly and senselessly for instance the repetition of remedies was carried on; prescribing six doses of one remedy, to be taken three or four times a day quite in the allopathic way, is the order of the day in the provinces, whilst the “Allg. hom. Ztg.” definitely recommends such repetition. And then they complain of course that homoeopathy sometimes fails. What is to happen in the end with this mischief!
Dr. Widenhorn wrote:
Paris, July 29th, 1834.
I have long been convinced of the advantage of letting the medicines act for a considerable time, although several and older homoeopaths wish to prove the contrary to me, by staying that they can cure more quickly with one or two doses a day than with intervals of 14 to 21 days.
But experience has absolutely convinced me of the truth of your assertion, and I never give another remedy until the effect of the last has ceased for a few days.
The following correspondence also refers to this subject:
Madame Bagdasar of Paris, asks the “immortal ” Hahnemann (20th February 1834.):
After having been for a long time the victim of a chronic ailment, of which no physician could find the origin, I put myself under the care of one of your pupils, and I feel a strong desire to give thanks directly to the immortal founder of homoeopathy, and being prejudiced in favour of the great excellence of this method of treatment, I should like to ask him if he now really recommends (as I am assured) the giving of these medicines in more frequently repeated doses, as is stated in the treatment of “Chronic Diseases” and the “Organon”.
Hahnemann replied:
Madame, Nothing is more difficult, or more necessary for the homoeopathic physician, than to observe; that is why the majority of doctors prefer to avoid this difficult task, wherever it seems permissible in the treatment of patients. Particularly as regards the immediate or frequent repetition of remedies they have emancipated themselves, so as not to be obliged to submit to the trouble of a laborious and continued observation. The general rule in the treatment of patents, is to allow one single minute dose of a remedy conscientiously chosen, to take effect until it ceases to act beneficially by lessening the ailment without interruption, in chronic diseases for two or three weeks, and even several months, while one single dose of the right remedy frequently cures an acute disease. But the majority of diseases require a succession of different remedies so as to be cured homoeopathically, as after the effect of the previous medicine has been exhausted the real homoeopath generally finds some symptoms still which do not correspond to the same remedy. It is consequently not desirable to repeat the previous medicine, although later on, it may again be indicated, when two, three, or perhaps four other remedies have been given.
Briefly those are the chief rules for the prescribing of homoeopathic remedies.
But there is sometimes an exception, and a different mode of procedure to the general one just mentioned is thus needed for the treatment of diseases, this is, that the accurately chosen corresponding remedy must be repeated for several consecutive doses. That is in those rare cases where it is necessary for the life force of the suffering organism to be influenced by more than one dose in order to be sufficiently freed from the ailment which is to be cured. But this remedy must only produce a favourable effect (on no account any new and unpleasant symptoms for the patient ) and when its effect wears off it will have relieved the chronic ailment only a little for 2, 3, or 4 days, which is one of the indications of nature that this same dose of the identical remedy should be repeated (Perhaps preferably in a different potency), and under those circumstances it will improve the condition of the patient, without any kind of inconvenience, if the physician has accurately observed the effects of the preceding dose, but it will do harm, if he has neglected to keep it under observation or if he has misinterpreted it.
In such a delicate manner, as the repetition of the dose, all is expressed when I say: no dose of the same remedy may be repeated consecutively unless the observer is convinced of the absolute necessity of such a repetition. Because the senseless repetition of the same homoeopathic remedy brings much more misfortune and harms the patient infinitely more than the repetition of the large doses of the non-potentised allopathic medicines.
In acute diseases the repetition of doses is subject to the same rules and limitation, but with shorter intervals of, perhaps from a few minutes to 2,4,8,12 or 24 hours. It is to be regretted that physicians who think more of their comfort than of the welfare of their patients, have adopted too hastily, and carried out too thoughtlessly a method which they hoped would relieve them of the trouble of a careful, minute and continued observation. Madame, make as much public use of this small record as you consider right, and accept the esteem of your very devoted and obedient.
Richard Haehl was also an editor and publisher of the homeopathic journal Allgemcine, and other homeopathic publications.
Haehl was responsible for saving many of the valuable artifacts of Samuel Hahnemann and retrieving the 6th edition of the Organon and publishing it in 1921.
Richard Haehl was the author of - Life and Work of Samuel Hahnemann