Another defects of the homoeopathic practitioner is that he depends far too much on the action of his remedy and completely ignores all the subsidiary help to treatment. He is inclined not to take into account the state of nutrition of his patient, his hygienic and nursing requirements – for example, enemas and hydrotherapy, etc. He waits too long for the expected action of his drugs. Often he will give one dose of the drug in the 30th potency and arrange to see him after a month.
The second time the patient puts in an appearance, the remedy is often not repeated, because when he says he is slightly better no remedy is necessary, and when he says he is worse, then it is considered an aggravation, and therefore again no remedy is necessary. When the patient says that he is better one must take into consideration the patients own natural resources to recover, when given some rest warmth or better food; instead of claiming improvement due to the action of the remedy. Thus one can see that the practitioners attitude towards his patients is far from scientific when actually he needs to be much more scientific in his approach to the patient than his allopathic brother.
4. Defects of Homoeopathic Teachers.
In this country there are facilities for post-graduate teaching in homoeopathy. By the word post-graduate one understands that the subsequent studies after graduation are based on what the student has already learnt. What does a young man coming fresh from a medical college hear at the post-graduate course? He sees that the teaching in Homoeopathy has entirely no bearing on the fundamentals of the medical sciences he has learnt; instead, he hears that a case of gastritis was cured by Pulsatilla because the patient was so mild and yielding that any one can easily make her pregnant.
Or a case of chronic indigestion was relieved by Natrum Carb because the patient cried when he heard music. This type of teaching cannot even appeal to a layman, let alone a medical man. One can easily say that this type has brought Homoeopathy to the brink of complete bankruptcy. Teaching in Homoeopathy must begin where the medical man ends his study, and the homoeopathic teaching must be in continuity to what he has learnt in the medical college.
Thus the action and the therapeutic effects of the homoeopathic remedies must begin with accurate analytical, toxicological and pharmacological studies, gradually enlarging their scope by the study of “provings” and then finally the wide therapeutic application. As explained before the action of Conium and symptoms on proving can be explained by a detailed study of the pharmacological action of its constituents.
The teaching on the clinical side is equally disastrous to the propagation of Homoeopathy. The most convincing proof to a medical practitioner of the therapeutic efficacy of a medical system lies in the treatment of acute cases. Thus the medical student hardly has the opportunity of seeing scarlet fever disappearing after a few doses of Belladonna; or lumbago, after a few doses of Rhus tox.
Instead, clinical demonstrations are made on chronic cases (who might be attending the hospital for years) with whom treatment is too prolonged to be impressive. Cases of arthritis are demonstrated while actually the student does not remain long enough to witness the cure. Or a case of diabetes mellitus may be demonstrated which disease is not a strong point in homoeopathic therapy.
The theory of homoeopathy must be introduced to the students with the greatest caution. It will require a good knowledge of recent medical advances and allied sciences to interpret the theory of Homoeopathy in modern terminology, at the same time deleting those clauses which have not stood the test of scientific investigation. Thus, the theory of Psora must not be taken from the point of view of itch alone, but rather one of slow toxination, from within or out side the body. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of Psora, and all the available evidence right up to the recent times must be displayed to the student.
I agree with “Enlightened” that the ways of Homoeopathic teachers have been far from conducive to attracting medical students to Homoeopathy, but “enlightened” should not forget that if Homoeopathy were to be offered one hundredth of the money and resources which Allopathy has to-day, it would easily in the next ten years be a menacing rival to what is called modern medical science, owing to the simple fact that Homoeopathy can cure diseases.
In conclusion it may be said that the main cause of the decline of Homoeopathy is not Homoeopathy itself, but rather the high priests of Homoeopathy, who teach and practice Homoeopathy as was done in early Victorian period.
