Having briefly reviewed a few of the more important phases of medical history, we may arrive at a conclusion.
The Treatment of Disease by Similars, Likes May be Treated by Likes, is Actually a Therapeutic Method Long Suggested to Medicine.
Owing to the fact that this conclusion is subject to several interpretations the writer feels the necessity of injecting his own interpretation. The evidence submitted above and which could be amplified many times, proves beyond all peradventure of a doubt that the method of treating disease by similars was a practice which existed in a variety of forms in all ages. Each century witnessed the intrusion and partial acceptance of the theory just as each hundred has seen its importance wane and nearly die with the extinction of its chief promoter. But even the regular appearance in a comet-like fashion is suggestive of a persistent attempt to force medicine into a different mode of practice and represents pioneer work in the discovery of a great and fundamental truth.
For surely this idea recurring in various guises and under different roles, discovered by workers in scattered countries and in different periods, cannot be entirely fallacious for, like the phoenix, it rises again from its own ashes, although displaying a new plumage of terminology and explanation. Although analysis of the different “similar methods” of treatment fail to show more than a very superficial resemblance, it appears to the writer that Hahnemanns discovery is a rediscovery, but that the particular manner in which it was utilized is new with Hahnemann.
A deduction frequently made from epitomes of medical history is that, just as Hahnemanns ideas may be regarded historically as a truth long known to medicine, so are his other theories a combination of sixteenth century vitalism and mysticism. Although I do not wish to closely analyze this hastily drawn conclusion, I am compelled to interject an allied thought. How frequently are the terms vitalism and mysticism used and how rarely are they defined and applied or criticised in the light of our present knowledge?.
A digression may be allowable to illustrate a slightly different angle of the situation. In the beginning Hahnemann offered a method of treating the sick by a substance capable of provoking a similar illness. In the ensuing years of his long life he elaborated upon many themes absolutely irrelevant to his first proposal. It is quite true that he sought to make his essential theory more plausible and more practical by attaching many dubious theories, but it must be emphatically stated that this patchwork, for it is no more, is denominated crude mysticism and vitalism in their unrefined sense. The error into which many appear to fall is to make Hahnemann greater than homoeopathy rather than the reverse.
To be more exact, homoeopathy is a method by which likes may be treated by likes (there are other interpretations and renderings); but it is this and no more, and many of Hahnemanns theories have little or nothing to do with the essential idea of similars. In fact, many were merely announced by the same man while others represent futile attempts at explanation, or hazy conjectural concepts which defy every attempt at co-ordination with his original idea.
Having so distant a connection it seems reasonable to assume that the vitality of any one of his ideas does not depend upon the validity of any other, nor in fact even of the truth of his offered explanation. May I add that he offered them only as working hypotheses to be cast aside if found insufficient; or would it be more apropos to ask should he be reproached for the failure to offer a satisfactory explanation for his phenomena when we cannot do so in spite of 125 years of advance in basic sciences.
To successfully deny a kinship in the presence of so close a historical connection with the doctrine of signatures, sympathy and similars requires a repudiation which the writer is not able to manufacture, and likewise the frequent mention of vital force in the later works of Hahnemann together with the doctrine of dynamization shows a close relationship to vitalism. But what of it? Let us clarify the situation by clearly distinguishing between what is homoeopathy and what are explanations of its modus operandi. In short each hypothesis is a complete chapter in itself and the truth or falsity of homoeopathy cannot be measured by the validity of the theory of psora or what not.
With the disposition of these two propositions we may profitably turn our attention to another item intimately allied to the historical angle. The opening paragraphs intimated that by reviewing medical history it might become possible to theorize with some basis as to why homoeopathy was announced at the particular time. Dismissing the possibility of divine revelation it is rational to proceed from the very reasonable assumption that a certain group of conditions must have existed in order for anyone to feel the necessity for deviating from the usual path.
If it is possible to show that the practice of medicine was in a very highly unsatisfactory state, in fact, almost unbelievable state, our problem becomes simplified. It is equally apparent that the new method would be at divergence with the accepted. We have then only the necessity to show that there was a need for him or some other radical to realize how unwarranted, unscientific, even disastrous the treatment was and the stage is set for the opening of a new school of thought.
We recall that the period of demonology was succeeded by an era when the supernatural factor was dethroned and materialism placed in high esteem. Diseases became realistic somethings and treatment proceeded upon a quantitative basis. Man was affected by a definite quantity of disease and energetic treatment was directed at the removal or dilution of real and hypothetical toxins. Whatever advantages this theory may possess the fact remains that it had many abuses.
Hahnemann appeared to object to treatment whereby fever is resolved by epistaxis, sweating and mucous expectoration, other diseases by vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding from the anus, or articular pains, by ulcers upon the legs, inflammation of the tonsils, by salivation. Therapy by diuretics and diaphoretics, applications of mustard, horse- radish, blisters, setons, issues, noxa, tartar emetic ointment, actual cautery, roborantia, nervina, tonica, do not seem to have met with his approval. Extremely large doses of mixtures containing fifty or more ingredients, the action of no one of which was understood, aroused his ire.
It would be exceedingly difficult to successfully maintain that a theory of violent ill-advised measures irrationally applied did more good than harm. These ill-conceived measures had increased both in the number of misunderstood drugs, and in an incomprehensible dosage until a period shortly preceding Hahnemann. Then came an inevitable and too long postponed reaction, a series of deviations from the accepted mode of practice. Materialistic medicine, by which we mean a quantitative therapy, had reached an apogee and it is significant that each mutation assumed a meta-physical aspect and made onslaught against the traditional method, until it can be said that an era of metaphysical medicine tended to dominate the field.
Hahnemann came onto the field when the background was a crumbling but still inhabited castle of empirical medicine crowded with vague, fanciful and speculative notions. It seems easy to predict what some of Hahnemanns reactions would be. First he would attempt to complete the devastation of the castle, secondly he would rebuke the surviving combatants for their irrational and disastrous treatment and offer a new method tinctured with current trends in medicine.
In this fashion we may arrive at an interesting conclusion. From the psychological stand-point any method offered by Hahnemann would be influenced by reaction to the unwarranted unscientific treatment of his day. If his explanations utilized the foremost knowledge of his time it is obvious that they would consist of statements tinctured with the terminology of mysticism and vitalism.
The following is indicative of the substitution he offered:.
“Homoeopathy sheds not one drop of blood, administers no emetics, purgatives, laxatives or diaphoretics, drives off no external affections by external means, prescribes no warm baths or mentioned clysters, no setons, no issues, excites no pytalism, burns not with moxa or red hot iron to the very bone and so forth, but gives with its own hand preparations of simple, un- compounded medicines with which it is accurately acquainted, never subdues pain with opium, etc”.
This quotation is offered as a partial substantiation of the writers statement that some homoeopathic practices may represent in part a psychological reaction to the prevailing practice of the time. I am not at this time speaking of their value but of a possible origin. This reaction, begun before Hahnemann in the very thought of mysticism and vitalism, reaches an apogee in Hahnemann and is continued by Bichat, Morgagni and the entire line of pathologists. In order to show what Hahnemanns contemporaries thought of their own therapeutics, I quote from the famous Parisian, Bichat:.
