The majority of the medical profession feels that homoeopathy has outlived its usefulness as a complete basis of foundation for a medical school, that it alone is inadequate in the diagnosis and treatment of human ills as we now understand them, and recognize that many of the principles and some of the remedies have been absorbed by so-called regular physicians and, thereby, lost their original homoeopathic identity. It seems to me that we must look at this problem from a practical standpoint, at least as far as the Hahnemann medical College is concerned.
For many years, the Hahnemann Medical College has provided excellent regular medical education, and homoeopathic education has been required, but is minimal in its relationship to the full four-year course. Yet, it is referred to as a homoeopathic school and, of course, enjoys the favourable and loyal support of those who are devoted to her, but also is deprived of the enthusiastic support, which she so richly deserves, from those physicians and other agencies which now consider homoeopathy in a less important light.
From a practical standpoint, the continued existence of Hahnemann is not primarily related to undergraduate homoeopathic education, but to that of providing the highest grade of scholarship in medicine, and it is our desire and intention to pursue this goal until our graduates have regained the high place they formerly held in all academic accomplishments, and to even go further in the realization that they may be even more competent than graduates from other institutions.
As long as we remain one of the institutions with the responsibility of teaching undergraduate homoeopathy, it would appear that the course in homoeopathy should be co-ordinated with and remain a part of our course in therapeutics, with the provision that our department of therapeutics teach in addition a wholly adequate course in therapeutics the same as any other medical school. As pointed out by Dr. Farrington, and in view of the already over-crowded medical school course, there is no more time available than to give an elementary type of instruction in homoeopathy, and in reality a physician, who is perfected in the field of homoeopathy, must gain this perfection through post- graduate education.
Such an arrangement is not without precedent in other fields of special therapy already existent in all medical schools. Perhaps, it would be better to even restrict the teaching of homoeopathy to post-graduate education and then homoeopathy could step out to take its place with any other speciality, supported by its methods establish by research and investigation of both the fundamental and clinical type.
The British Homoeopathic Journal, Vol. XXXVII., No. 2.
