We must, however, give him recognition and praise for treating every year, twelve poor patients gratuitously, who came to him at the same consulting hours, and shared equal rights with their more wealthy fellow-brings, for they took their turn in rotation, and no one, however, wealthy, could boast of having been given the precedence.
HAHNEMANN’S LETTERS ON TITLE AND FEES.
To Dr. Rummel, Hahnemann wrote:
then, 19 May, 1831. Of course a title such as that of “Medicinalrath” has the advantage of procuring a physician better fees, especially for the homeopath whom the enemy of his science seeks to humiliate; but even if it were not so, it is advisable for the homoeopathic physician to set a very much higher value on his so infinitely superior science of healing, so as to procure for himself better fees, or at least to put chronic patient on a settled monthly fee (preferably paid in advance), and to make the poorer patients pay a small sum each time, if it were only a few groschen-accipe dum dolet. (Take while it hurts-R.H.). Only in this way is it possible for the physician to avoid loss, and keep up his courage by seeing some actual money for his trouble. Even such small amounts if regularly and correctly pain up each time will mount up to a sum, and the patient who pays every time hardly notices it in his purse, because he discharges his duty gradually, and when he was recovered, or else has left off coming before treatment is completed, he has no claim on us or we on him; he separates from us if not grateful and satisfied, also without indignation. What he has given gradually has passed out of his mind and the physician has received his due, in this way it passes from the patient’s purse into that of the doctor without causing displeasure. Otherwise how much annoyance is created for the physician, if he presents the bill when the patients is gradually improving, and has completely forgotten the great amount of trouble the doctor has taken, ut fieri solet (as usually happens-R.H.). Since I have been practising the beneficent method of treatment, I have never made a claim of small amounts at the time of consultation, and the system of monthly preremuneration of he wealthy classes, has been introduced, and the patients have got accustomed to it, then every one brings his money unreminded with him, or physician conducts his establishment properly, and is a helpful homoeopath, he can make a good income and also save a little.
Rummel replied to Hahnemann: Merseburg, 15.6.31.
With people who come to me, and with patients who are living some distance away I have introduced something similar, and it works well. But with the many patients which I have to visit in my ordinary practice, this arrangement cannot be made. Yet I have, with several families, a fixed honorarium of 4, 6, and 8, and of 20 Friedrichs d’or with one patient. I am financially not in a bad position. If my outside practice increases still more, I hope to put your suggestion more and more into effect.
To Dr. Ehrhardt of Merseburg, Hahnemann wrote on August 24th, 1829:
You are far too timid, and let your patients impose upon you far too much-like the allopaths who are glad to keep a patients as a client. It should not be so; for if you are perfectly conversant with your art, you must command absolutely- and not allow you patient to make conditions. He must submit to you, not you to him. To this, end, and in order that you may be perfectly free, you must curtail (in the beginning) your requirements, so that you may not suffer want, even though but few patients need you.
These few you will be able to treat better, and cure with greater certainly, if you. These few you will be able to treat better, and cure with greater certainly, if you have taken the necessary time to advise them, and also have time for study; because we homoeopaths cannot penetrate too deeply into our art. But when we are masters, then we may and can assert ourselves, and in order to save our valuable time, and not lower our dignity we must not go visiting chronic patients, who can well come to our house, even if it were a prince. We must only visit acute bedridden patients. Those who can go about, if they will not come to your house for advice, can stay away. All this running after them, in the manner of allopaths, degrades you. You have come to see your patient, the housemaid will not admit you; the gentleman has gone to the theatre, or for a drive, etc. Fie! Then you have to go on to a second, a third, just like an allopath or a beggar. Fie!
When a patient comes to your house, you must make him pay each time, for your trouble, from poor people it may be only 6 to 8 Groschen, from the rich it might be Thalers. If this is so arranged and they do not know any different, then your patient will always have his money with him, and if he should not want to come again, he can stay away. If he has not brought the money with him, make another appointment in an hour or two, so that he may go and get it, and bring you the remuneration for your trouble.
Money gives courage, even though it be not a large sum; if I have what is due to me in my purse, then I feel that I am not working for nothing, that I am not dependent on every one’s favour, and fearful lest I should not be paid.
What payment have you received from Mr. the Privy Councillor? I suggest that the greater part of your fee is on credit; and later on when you remind him of payment you will get a wry face, reproaches, and then very little or nothing. Under such circumstances it is impossible to remain cheerful. After the treatment, he will have forgotten how much trouble you have had with him. The world is ungrateful. Rich patients should pay at each consultation, or once a month. Otherwise they may go where they like. If you do not arrange matters in this fashion you will be worse off than the most miserable wretch.
I said that you were timid. Running about paying visits takes away one’s courage and makes one timid.
ll my patients of rank affected with chronic diseases, must have read the “Organon”and Boenninghausen’s “Homoeopathy,” otherwise I will not undertake their treatment.
Hahnemann also wrote to Dr. Schrter of Lemberg (N. “Archiv,” Vol. III, 1846): then, 28th February, 1829.
You should have made yourself more distant with your patients and generally adopted a more haughty attitude, seeing that you wee not without financial support from home; more often than not you should send away patients, or leave them at once if they do not show sufficient confidence, or sufficient respect for you and your art. You must never allow them to dismiss you, but every time that you are not obeyed, and they are no longer courteous, you must dismiss them first “you are not doing as I told you, do so and so, just what I did not wish-get whom you like-I do not want you,” and so one after the other, even if he uses words with a double meaning against homoeopathy, or does anything else unseemly, dismiss him straight away. This would have robbed you of some patients in the beginning, that were not worth troubling about, but in time if you kept to his commanding attitude, you would have been respected, you would have been sought after, and patients would not have done anything unseemly towards you. Sooner be without patients, and spend your time in study and such light things; rather remain in proud isolation than be on such terms with patients. The latter ought to thank God, that you took them up and considered them worthy to be treated with the glorious doctrine, and even then they would still have to listen to your reproaches, for the way in which they had allowed allopaths to bungle them, so that you hardly thought it possible to make good what had been so spoiled.
Then those of your patients who will not obey, send away without further explanation, although you may only retain one or two, or even in such a position not a single patient. They would then gradually return with more decency, submissiveness, and modesty and more inclined to pay well. Surely you let chronic patients who can walk, come to your house? Who would lower himself so much as to go and visit Mr. Patient who in the meantime had gone out, and had let you come in van! Chronic patients, even those of high rank must come to you, and those who will not come must stay away. You must cultivate a higher opinion of yourself. Sooner starve (which you need not to), than lower your dignity and that of your art!
With regard to the question of fees C. E. Wahrhold, protests in his “Popular papers on homoeopathic treatment” (1837, page 64) against an attack in No. 126 of the “Eremite.”
He writes.
In closing I cannot refrain from expressing my disapproval of the way in which the honourable Dr. Hahnemann has frequently been brought into discredit, and medical treatment. Ten Loud d’or for one consultation my seem a very high fee to the author of that unseemly article; but can it be interpreted in a suspicious or evil manner, if a man who has given up his whole life to the development and perfecting of this important cause, asks for a somewhat heavy compensation for the trouble and interruptions caused to his hours of rest, considering his advanced age? And then, would it be seemly if in Paris, a Marshal, a Peer, or other very wealthy person should drive up to consult Dr. Hahnemann and pay him one france? Do not allopaths of very high repute, although they have not discovered a new system, often charge very high fees? Dr. Hahnemann has already made many sacrifices to advance homoeopathy, and given from his own private means considerable subscriptions, where the financial resources were insufficient, for the gratuitous treatment of the poor.
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