Cases
CC Dropsy. CC
(80) Case. – A boy had scarlatina. On the twelfth and thirteenth day from the appearance of the rash he had swelling of the right hand and fingers, with scanty, high colored urine. Digitalis c. m. (Fincke) every four hours for four doses. Next day hand nearly well, urine freer and paler. Recovered. Forty – one remedies are given by Boenninghausen and Jahr under “Swelling of the hands.” This list does into include Cactus or other recently proved remedies. Neither the swelling nor the highly – colored, scanty urine is diagnostic of any one remedy, being found under many. Shall we theorize, pathologically, and argue that as the kidneys were the source of the mischief we must direct our efforts to the establishment of their secretion? If so, what shall we give? Shall it be Digital. or Apis or Terebinth? All, and many more, act on the kidneys. No, the homoeopathic physician takes note of apparently insignificant symptoms, which to the pathologist (only) are of no value, because he cannot explain them. In this case the right hand and fingers were swollen.
This symptom is of no importance to the pathologist; what does it matter to him whether the right hand or the left is swollen in post – scarlatinal dropsy? The homoeopathic physician, however, finds out that only five of the above forty – one have “Swelling of the right hand,” Digit., Hepar. Lycop., Nat. mur. and Phosph., and of these only Digit. has in the same symptoms, “Swelling of right hand and fingers” Another peculiarity unexplainable to the pathologist.
Phosphorus has indeed swelling of right index finger as well as the hand, but here the swelling becomes black and gangrenous, which is a contra – indication.
Mercurius sol. has swelling of left hand, and Cactus oedema of both hands, worse in the left. (Berridge.)
CC Dropsy. CC
(81) Case. – In 1865 I was called to a man, Mr. Mathewson, aged about 80 years, who was sitting upright in his chair because he could not breathe lying down. He was a man who did not like to call a doctor, so had come e to a very bad state at this time. I found hydrothorax, of course, and his lower limbs were greatly swollen and very hard, but readily pit on pressure, and stay pitted a long time after. Dark red, almost purple spots had appeared on the lower legs, as if the tissues were about to become gangrenous. Heart action very weak, at times very slow, and again at times rapid, irregular and intermitting. Respiration very difficult; could not lie down; had sat in his chair for three weeks. Suffocative constriction, distressing dyspnoea, wants to get a long breath, and, on account of the effusion in the chest, heart sounds very muffled. Urine very scanty and red.
The diagnosis was, of course, cardiac dropsy. But referring to Allen’s Encyclopaedia it will be seen that Digitalis covered all the heart symptoms. I gave it first in the potency (30) then lower, finally drop doses of the fluid extract. No result. The patient then expressed a wish to see an electric physician. SO I brought him in. He looked him over, and on the way home I said, Well, doctor, what shall we give that man to cure him? He looked at me resentfully, and exclaimed, Do you think I am a fool? NO, I replied, I thought you knew something or I would not have brought you down here. Well, said he, you know this man will die within two weeks if you know anything. I didn’t say. But I went home, went up to the drug store and procured some powdered digitalis leaves, made a 1st decimal trituration, and said to myself, we’ll see what a decoction will do, and, old man, you either die or get well on this I put up some one grain powders and told the nurse (his wife) to put one in the bottom of a teacup and pour the cup half full of hot water and let it stand an hour,, and then let him drink it, and repeat once in two hours. Next day he was no worse apparently; thought he felt a little better. The next day the urine increased and soon became very profuse, and all his symptoms rapidly subsided. Then the interval between powders was increased to two hours, four hours, eight hours, twelve hours, twenty – four hours, etc., and finally left off altogether. In one month he came up town, nearly a mile, and carried home a bushel of cornmeal on his shoulder. I met him a few months after and jokingly said to him. Well, old man, aren’t you ever going to die, can’t anything kill you? Well, said he, I don’t know, I guess not; you tried your best. There was never any return of the dropsy, and he lived seven years after and died of old age simply, as near as I could diagnose (Nash.)
I have in several other similar cases seen this decoction of Digitalis do good work when the fluid extract in old school hands failed, also when the potencies and alcoholic preparations failed.
I prescribed upon the symptoms above named and cured the man, whatever the pathology of the case.
In the Hahnemann Monthly (Journal), A.D. 1871, page 171, is an article from the pen of our ever beloved and honored Constantine Hering which is entitled “The Great Desideratum.”
In my opinion it is a masterpiece which should be reproduced often and never lost sight of. Want of space forbids quoting it entire in these pages, but I will, I hope, be pardoned for making somewhat lengthy quotations from the same.
“In 1844 there appeared in the A.H. Z., Vol. 27, page 1, a very elaborate treatise on the homoeopathic treatment of endocarditis, by Clotar Mueller. To the symptoms obtained by the provings he has added, not without skill and great ingenuity, the symptoms of percussion and auscultation, according to the cures reported. I back and Trinks in their Handbook had just commenced to astonish the homoeopathic world by their readymade labels containing, in technical terms, the constitution, temperaments, and all the undefined general characteristics of many of our drugs. These labels were eagerly translated and copied into an original big book on materia medica; and now many years after they pass for essentials in Hughes’ Text Book. Yes, finding their way event into Burt’s Characteristics.” Such “Labels” we can best liken to the red and blue flowers growing in wheat fields. When the grain is harvested and prepared to yield such flour as we made bread of they are separated and thrown on the dung hill.
Sure observations live forever.
Cl. Mueller must have had a foreboding of this, for he say on page 57: “Next to Digitalis no other remedy deserves a new proving as much as Spigelia, that is, a proving having for its object the auscultatory symptoms. Such a proving would give with the very extraordinary specific influences Spigelia has on the heart a great many more decisive and more certain results.”
It bothers our learned author not a little that according to the cures made by homoeopathicians Spigelia had shown itself of great use in pericarditis, in all the stages of endocarditis, even the far progressed, in valvular diseases of different kinds in hypertrophy, and, alas, also in dilatations. He wished, like Watzke, in the Vienna provings of Colocynthis, Aconite, etc., to have such symptoms as would, above all, enable him to put Spigelia into one of the drawers of the sideboard invented by the pathologists of the late period.
In Edwin M. Hale’s “Lectures on Diseases of the Heart,” 1871, on page, 88, we find the following remark: ” Spigelia is an important remedy in pericarditis, but the provings were conducted with such disregard for physical or objective symptoms, or even correct subjective symptoms, that it is difficult to define clearly its curative sphere.” By “curative sphere” the author cannot mean anything else but those above mentioned drawers in the sideboard.
There was no difficulty whatever to “define clearly” the effect of a number of herbs proved in a hurry, by a few, who were at the same time in a hurry to cure sick people with indigenous plants. The reason why there is such a difficulty here to “define the sphere,” and to define it “clearly,” is only because it will not fit in the drawers. And why does it not? There are too many symptoms, and there is a want of such as the author requires to “define the sphere.”
But there is a school of medicine founded by a certain Hahnemann, who laid down as a main principle to Select the curative drug, according to symptoms, not according to spheres Now it happened that Spigelia had been given according to the corroborated and characteristic symptoms, not only in so many different diseases of the heart, but also in inflammatory diseases of the brain, the eyes, the lungs, in neuralgias of the yes, the face, the shoulders, the feet, etc., also in catarrh of the stomach, in affections from worms, and even for squinting. Well, we have to put the heart or the worms in the centre of the sphere.” Then Hering goes on to give quite an extensive history of the provings of Spigelia. After that is done we quote again: “But what is the great desideratum so ardently desired, form Cl. Mueller in 1844 down to the Lectures on Diseases of the Heart, in 1871? It has been repeatedly said during a quarter of century that the provers ought to get “auscultatory symptoms.” This was said first by one, then by two, three and so on, and now it has become what some call a public opinion, an opinion of the majority. Let anyone read the words (V. II, p. 390) in Shipman’s Grauvogl (and all ought to have it), “Assent becomes a duty.”
