President: “You prescribe under the influence of Mme. Hahnemann?”
Delot: “When the patients arrive Madame Hahnemann and I consult together about them.”
President: “What advantage do you gain by consulting Madame Hahnemann?”
Delot: “I am a pupil of Hahnemann myself, but as I have the greatest confidence in the keen insight and experience of his widow, who has penetrated much deeper than I into the mysteries of the master, I consider it my duty to consult her and she then says Hahnemann would have done the same in a similar case. But Madame Hahnemann has never practised by herself. I repeat it, it is always I who give the prescription in her presence. The consultations take place in her room when the patients are able to come there; I visit and treat in their own house those who are seriously ill; when patients come during my absence Mme. Hahnemann receives and questions them, writes down their answers which she communicates to me on my return, and then we prescribe when the patients return.”
President: “But your presence was not awaited in order to prescribe for Mme. Broggi, when treatment was requested through her friend.”
Delot: “I do not think that this case occurred as is stated, for I alone have treated this lady and was always in Mme. Hahnemann’s room.”
President: “Does not Mme. Hahnemann at times visit patients?”
Delot: “She accompanies me sometimes, but only to friends or very intimate acquaintances, but she never visits alone. I briefly sum up my declarations by definitely stating herewith, for my own sake, that I consider myself very fortunate to be able to avail myself of Mme. Hahnemann’s advice and experience in the practice of homoeopathy, she always grants me her assistance as a friend.”
President: “Do you receive a fee for your consultations?”
Delot: “Never for those which I hold in Mme. Hahnemann’s house; but when I treat patients in their own houses, and that is by myself, I ask for payment for my visits as do other physicians.”
Dr. Croserio, Hom. Physician, gives an almost identical account as the previous witness:
“During my intimate friendship with Hahnemann I frequently heard him say that his wife was very skilled in homoeopathy, and Hahnemann never spoke an untruth. After the death of the master I presumed that in all probability Mme. Hahnemann had been initiated into the deepest mysteries of her husband’s science and soon gained complete certainty on this point when I heard her speak in her room about cases with Mr. Delot, who consulted her about them. Briefly, Mme. Hahnemann, according to my convictions, possesses such extensive medical knowledge and is so much superior to the other homoeopathic physicians, that when I was ill and unable to find a suitable remedy I owed my recovery to the intelligent advice of Hahnemann’s widow. I add that I do not believe Mme. Hahnemann receives payment for consultations in her room. As regards myself, I have always reckoned my honorarium as an ordinary visit when she has accompanied me, as sometimes happened.”
M. Lethiere, apothecary: “I live with Madame Hahnemann who has brought me up; I prepare the remedies which I have received from Hahnemann and give them to the patients who show me the prescriptions which these gentlemen have given them in the presence of Madame Hahnemann.”
President: “Does Madame Hahnemann write prescription herself?”
M. Lethiere: “Never Mme. Hahnemann alone. I receive my prescriptions from Mme. Hahnemann together with those gentlemen.”
The King’s Counsel: “You have not handed in any application to the authorities in your capacity as apothecary, you have neither certificate nor laboratory?”
Lethiere: “Indeed I have not, as I do not require it, for I do not sell remedies, therefore my diploma as apothecary is sufficient.”
The King’s Counsel: “In one word according to the law you are not an apothecary.”
Strongly the King’s Counsel (Mr. Staillard) insists upon the accusation.
Mr. Chaix-d’Est-Ange, begins the defence of the accused.
After a very lively discussion in court the Tribunal postponed sentence for eight days.
The sentence was pronounced on February 27th, and was as follows:
“In view of the fact that the Laws and Regulations which regulate the practice of Medicine and Pharmacy are based upon the maintenance of Public Order and the general interest of the community, their strict application is rendered unavoidably necessary.
“In view of the fact of the existence of these Laws and Regulations, the circumstances that the medical treatment as well as the remedies were given gratuitously, does not alter their application, nor can it modify it.
“In view of the fact that the investigation and procedure has shown that Madame Hahnemann has practised medicine, and as it is further certain that two days in the week are definitely arranged for consultations in her own house and that she practises in the town:
“And since further the circumstance has been held against this accusation that two physicians were actively engaged in assisting Madame Hahnemann, and since from the declarations given in the witness-box as well as from the named physicians, and from Madame Hahnemann herself, it results that those physicians are entirely subordinate to Madame Hahnemann and receive from her advice and prescriptions and that in reality she alone conducts the consultations and the town practice, which is amply proved from the correspondence submitted, and as further this circumstance, even granted the presence of the physicians, would still present a circumvention of the Law, but as the Tribunal ascertained that the presence of these physicians, however ineffectual and unnatural it may be in regard to medical practice, has in reality not existed, and that Madame Hahnemann has prescribed and ordered medicines unassisted:
“In view of the fact that the diploma of doctor of homoeopathic medicine conferred upon her by a foreign Academy can be of no further importance here, as it lacks the necessary authorisation in France:
“In view of the fact that it becomes evident from the circumstances that Madame Hahnemann has dispensed medicines herself and that an examination of the house shows that these medicines were deposited in Madame Hahnemann’s private room and not in a laboratory of apothecary Lethiere junior; that on the contrary, the said laboratory contained nothing of what belongs to an apothecaries’ shop; that in any case the said Lethiere is unable to practise his art as he lacks the legal certificates of the Law of 21 Germinal, of the year 11 (even), the objection raised in favour of Madame Hahnemann does not exist:
“In view of the fact that from this results that Madame Hahnemann practised medicine in the year 1846 without a diploma or without a certificate valid in France, under the assumption of the title of doctor, and at the same time without lawful authority dispensed preparations and prepared and sold remedies which is an offence against Articles 35 and 36 of the Law of 19 Ventose of the year 11, Article 36 of the Law of 21 Germinal of the year 11, and Article 6 of the Declaration of April 25th, 1777, finds consideration:
“After a Declaration of the said articles the widow Hahnemann is sentenced to a fine of one hundred francs.”
SUPPLEMENT 238
MADAME MELANIE HAHNEMANN AND THE CONGRESS OF HOMOEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN BRUSSELS OF THE YEAR 1856.
Following a remark in the periodical “L’Emancipation” and in the newspaper “La Presse” that Madame Hahnemann intended to be present at the Congress of Homoeopathic physicians in Brussels (September, 1856). the Central Homoeopathic Commission in Paris decided that no one could attend a meeting as a member, “who is not in the possession of a recognised diploma awarded as the result of examinations at a recognised University.”
Zeal and good intention, even knowledge, cannot in this case replace the position given by a recognised diploma which is the reward of arduous studies and strict examinations.
A doctor’s diploma given without these conditions which are customary at all Universities can only be a mark of courtesy towards Hahnemann’s widow. Such a diploma confers no more rights than the title of Chancellor of Cambridge University conferred upon the Duke of Wellington with the right and freedom of this University. This famous soldier, who was simultaneously University Chancellor and Honorary President of the Fishmongers’ Hall in London, did not consider himself any more capable of nominating doctors or to play a part in a scientific gathering than of selling fish in the market of the English capital. As also in Europe women have been considered by law incapable as regards medicine (that is, they are not admitted to medical studies-R.H.), therefore Madame Liette (concerning whose attendance there was also some mention-R.H.) and Madame Hahnemann cannot arrogate to themselves any rights of taking part of the Homoeopathic Congress which will shortly take place in Brussels. The statutes of the Congress are clear (positive) and will be applied in all strictness. While the Commission is acting in this manner, nevertheless it understands how to honour Hahnemann’s memory, whose mighty reform of medical science is a unique and important work, a reform which can only be propagated usefully by those who are entitled to do so, and who possess the authority, to express themselves on medical questions on the basis of their knowledge.
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