Homoeopathy is exceedingly rich in very powerful medicines which can cure all surgical as well as non-surgical diseases when handled by master prescribers. Our observation and experience with this system of medicine lead us to place unbounded confidence in its efficacy to save life in the most desperate derangements which threaten human life with danger of death.
In a very short period of 150 years of activity Homoeopathy has proved its worth most successfully. It has never failed to cure or to relieve all acute and chronic diseases like Typhoid, Small-pox, Dysentery, Pneumonia Cholera, Rheumatism, Paralysis, Apoplexy, Malaria, (simple and malignant) Influenza, Tubercular affections all sorts of skin diseases (including leprosy), gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Tumours, Carbuncles, Abscesses, Cancers, diphtheria Appendicitis meningitis etc.
It has always performed miracles which we can very reasonably boast of. Our success with Homoeopathic medicines is splendid. Any one swayed by prejudice and ill-will, may very well reject. Homoeopathy as useless, may ridicule our science and achievements but truth is unshakable in its foundation which is as firm as a solid rock and all efforts to hide or suppress truth will ever end in failure. On its onward march of progress Homoeopathy had always to face unjust and unwise criticism of destructive character. But still the progress was neither restrained nor halted. Criticism is healthy and is always invited but such criticism must be born of knowledge. Criticism which is born of ignorance is always unfavourable and destructive.
Critics of Homoeopathy must make a deep study of our literature and receive the real fundamentals of homoeopathic philosophy and Materia Medica or else their criticism will only tend to mislead public opinion and cause inconvenience and harm to innocent people. Before pronouncing it good or bad one must possess a thorough knowledge of it. This is true of any criticism. Criticism is an analysis of experience. Most of the critics of Homoeopathy have absolutely no knowledge of Homoeopathic Materia Medica and Organon.
Then how can they criticise it or how can they dismiss homoeopathy as all nonsense and bosh? A man who has got complete knowledge in allopathy or who is even considered the highest authority in allopathy, can only discuss matters on allopathy with any degree of precision, he has neither the right nor the ability to talk on matters regarding the science and art of Homoeopathy Gentlemen who criticise Homoeopathy must know that it is a fully developed science and requires an intense study for years in order to understand its merits.
Men who have grown very old in this profession and have even forty years of experience and study behind them, can rarely claim to be real masters of Homoeopathy. It is so vast and so rich in facts. A superficial study of the Homoeopathic art of cure will but increase the prejudice and serve no useful purpose. Homoeopaths with but superficial knowledge of the new healing art will always doubt the efficacy of our medicines in the treatment of disease which visit mankind. Homoeopathic doctors who do not like to study well our Materia Medica and Organon but only acquire a scanty knowledge about it and try to pass themselves for Homoeopaths constitute a real danger to the growth and progress of the new school of medicine.
A mere degree from a Homoeopathic College (probably with a gold medal) will not always make a good homoeopath. To be a good homoeopath one must possess a natural ability in prescribing and a burning desire to learn. Indomitable craving for knowledge of Homoeopathy and a most laborious habit can place you in the forefront of our Homoeopathic physician. The college qualification alone will never help you to win the confidence of our clients. A careful study, development of commonsense and an inborn liking for Homoeopathy can produce a good Homoeopathic physicians. Study alone will not do, unless one knows the art of application for which instinct and rich commonsense are necessary.
Reading and thinking must go hand in hand or your dream of becoming a good homoeopath will never materialise. “One regular physician who studies and adopts Homoeopathy is worth twenty-five of the physicians that our colleges are turning out as far as the good and advancement of homoeopathy is concerned.” Ed. Homoeopathic Recorder. Hence for the honest study of homoeopathy the existence of schools and colleges is not very necessary as any devoted student of homoeopathy can learn it very well in his own library. But it requires a natural tendency for the study of this subject. And all persons can not possess such tendencies. So for the teaching of Homoeopathy ways and means should be devised.
Students in our medical colleges should be helped to take an interest in the study and practice of Homoeopathy. In India we have no want of masters Homoeopaths who can devise means of helping our students to become true Homoeopathic physicians. The advancement of Homoeopathy really rests in the hands of our students and therefore it should be the duty of every good Homoeopath of established reputation to show these students the exact method of study of our art. The leading Homoeopathic physicians of this country should now come out with their suggestions for the betterment of the practice of homoeopathic medicines in India. Now let them make an united effort for better appreciation of Homoeopathy.
As far as we understand, the existing Homoeopathic Colleges should be maintained under strict government supervision and they should be encouraged to work for producing real Homoeopathic physicians who can practice it with ease and efficiency and to achieve this end greater attention should be paid for a most through and intense study of Materia Medica and Organon without which no one can successfully practise Homoeopathy. Besides this, in all allopathic colleges arrangements should be made, if possible, for the study and understanding of Homoeopathic Materia Medica and philosophy.
In allopathic colleges, in addition to their usual course of study, the students should be induced to study Homoeopathic Materia Medica and Organon. This will produce a very happy result. All our doctors will then know what Homoeopathy is and when they begin their career they can practise allopathy or Homoeopathy or both as they like.
Poor people often cannot spend much money on allopathic medicines and here the doctors can employ Homoeopathic medicines for their cure as, these medicines are very cheap. Then there should be institutions for post graduate study of Homoeopathy where leading Homoeopaths of our country should be invited to deliver lectures at a certain period of every year.
Calcutta