INDUSTRY IN HOMOEOPATHY.
“Of the majority of the rank and file of homoeopathy–the average practitioners of today it is difficult to speak without indignation and grief. Ignorant of the history, theory and principles of homoeopathy; disloyal to its highest traditions; devoid of system and technique; careless and slovenly in prescribing; deficient often even in the legitimate and necessary auxiliary sciences of general medicine; given to the unthinking use of every new laboratory product of modern scientific medicine, as well as combination tablets and other nostrums miscalled “homoeopathic”–but why go on? You all know them.
No wonder our school has degenerated almost to the point of extinction. One can only pity them, for they are the product of four generations of degenerating ancestors, each worse than the last.” These are the words of no less a person than Dr. Stuart Close, M. D., the great savant of homoeopathic philosophy.
How does his opinion bear with the present state of homoeopathic practice in our country ? We had our Rajinder Dutt and Bijoy Chandra Sinha who drank deep in the fountain of Homoeopathy and were loyal to its highest traditions. Rajinder Dutts greatest glory was in acquiring Mahendra Lal Sircar into the ranks of Homoeopathy. Mahendra Lals conversion was not actuated by tyranny of penury that today draws almost the whole lump of heretics into the fold homoeopathic practice with a reckless rushing in; for, Mahendra Lal commanded a very lucrative allopathic practice when he came in touch with Rajinder Dutt.
His conversion manifested his courage of conviction, his unflinching devotion to truth; and the extent of persecution he suffered and the bulk of his financial sacrifice brought him almost to the rank of a martyr. With the hybrid homoeopathists of today it is all flirting with fortune. Methods and objectives are of least importance with them.
The laity only appreciate any highly spectacular method adopted by a physician, and any palliation appeal to them as cure. In the words of Dr. Alfred Pulford, The Hahnemannian cure, as I understand it, is not one of mere cure, but a complete eradication of disease, root and branch, quite a different thing from the mere cure. Anything short of this is mere palliation.” Again, “In my estimation, a REAL CURE consists not only in a disappearance of the disease manifestations, no matter how speedily nor how pleasantly, but in the entire eradications of the predisposition thereto, also that that predisposition may not be handed down to the offspring.”
To effect such a cure entails an industrious job on the homoeopathic practitioners. How many of them are willing to do it? The homoeopathist cannot be expected to run his affairs on the basis of philanthropy, pauperising himself and his family. The general run of patients will not pay him for necessary attention, for the time involved in treating them according to Hahnemannian method and the industry and fidelity. It cannot be done.
The doctor says, “Patients wont pay for it.” In Dr. Closes words, “No physician, nor any other man for that matter, can afford to ten dollars worth of work for one dollar.” Quite right. He remarks, “It is equally unfair and demoralizing to both. The world is not and cannot be run on any such basis, ethically or financially. Reciprocity is the only true basis, and that means a dollar, or its equivalent, in compensation for a dollars worth of time and service at a fair valuation”.
The method of true homoeopathic practice was outlined and illustrated in the series of articles under caption “A Brief Study Course” by Dr. Elizabeth Wright, and another under caption “Comparative Value of Symptoms” by Dr. R. Gibson Miller, reprinted in the third volume of this journal. We have undertaken to reprint other valuable articles during the current year to serve as a guide to undebased practice of homoeopathy. We draw close attention of our readers to these articles.
These will put us on the right way to take and work out a case to a Similimum and lead us to do better work with the natural results of such work. Many of us have been an indirect cause of homoeopathic degeneration by adopting unsound financial policies, renouncing Hahnemanns standard, and going in for money by petty- fogging.
Dr. Stuart Close submits two general propositions:
1. The attainment of reasonable wealth or a competence upon which to retire when ones working days are over is an honorable ambition and incentive to industry in any physician.
2. Success in the practice of homoeopathy–the attainment of curative results depends upon definite knowledge of the theory and principles, or philosophy of homoeopathy, mastery of the technic of homoeopathic prescribing, and diligence in the intelligent application of both principles and technic.
He assures us that there is no necessary incompatibility between these two propositions, in spite of much seeming evidence to the contrary.
“What is success? It is not the amassing of great wealth nor a continual round of pleasure. It is not great reputation nor wide-spread fame. Real success is doing something better than any one else is doing it”.
All this brings out in bold relief the time factor, and the rate of fee per hour to be charged for giving conscientious service to the patient.
Dr. Close observes; “True medicine, and especially homoeopathy, will never succeed in gaining its rightful place by cheapening its services financially. In doing that it will only succeed in bringing ridicule and contempt upon itself and its practitioners. They will succeed in gaining the worlds respect only by maintaining their own dignity and self-respect, by doing their work well and conscientiously and by charging what it is worth,”.
Dr. Close asserts: “Within a radius of two blocks from my office I can take you to several “popular” doctors whose offices are crowded with waiting patients, being run through the mill at the rate of one every three to five minutes–fifteen to twenty patients per hour. Most of this routine work is done by the office nurses. But each patient leaves his three, five or ten dollar fee for the doctors and come two or three times a week. Some come every day for considerable periods”.
“I should not like to change places with these doctors and live through those poignant periods when conscience hales them before the bar of judgment and sternly points the accusing finger at them”.