It is not in the least difficult to prescribe for the prostrated, cold, restless, tormented and fearful patient who has a burning thirst, etc., but do we many failures? Why doesnt some one try and defend the symptomatic method of selecting a remedy by his failures? We all know only too well how difficult it is to get clearly defined symptoms, in chronic cases particularly, and how often we fumble in the selection of the appropriate remedy; why is it no one ever speaks of this, and show how wonderfully easy it is to fail with this method?.
But even if we were always successful in finding the similimum with this method, it is possible that even then we should be lacking in essential knowledge in the case. Symptoms per se tell us nothing of the cause of variation, of predisposition or of susceptibility; tell us no more than does pathological tissue under the microscope. Moreover, symptoms tell us nothing of the cause of variation in reaction which is always observed when making a proving on a number of individuals. They do not tell us why one reacted in one way, another in a different way while another failed utterly to react.
And does anyone mean to say that a knowledge of these things is unessential when we come to study and to teach materia medica and to prescribe? Do the pathogenetic records of bryonia and nux, for example, tell us anything about why in some respects there are marked similarities and in other respects equally marked dissimilarities? Why does opium make one person desperately sleepy while another is aroused to the point of ecstasy? How is it that ginseng is able to produce symptoms in some individuals quite identical to those which belladonna produces in others? Why does bryonia produce constipation in some and diarrhoea in others? Why a thousand other whys? Do the symptoms themselves tell us?.
DR. Underhill further tell us that: “Structural changes, observable pathology and demonstrable alterations in the body are very often late manifestations-too late, in fact, to be of much service i prescribing for the patient.” Perfectly true. But so are symptoms many times. Only a knowledge of Modern Morphology enables the physician to get there first. This knowledge makes predisposition and susceptibility as clear if not clearer than symptoms and pathology make the end products of disease.
And the physician who possesses this knowledge can make far better use of his homoeopathic remedies in combatting these than the symptom can the symptoms of actual disease. Neither pathology alone nor symptoms alone can tell us with absolute certainty the cause of a morbid process or the reason for the particular clinical course which it assumes in different individuals. Hence both are to that extent uncertain as bases for therapeutic measures. Only the science of Morphology makes these things clear.
Let us not forget that it is Morphology only which concerns itself with a study of the factors which make the individual what he is. Neither pathology nor symptomatology does. They concern themselves with end-products of morbid processes only. What the symptomatologist does with the time-honored method of examining a patient is, he extracts such symptoms from the individual as he is able, separates them from the individual entirely, creates what he is pleased to call an image, which he seeks to match with another artificially and arbitrarily created image.
The real image, the individual, is shunted to one side. He has delivered something to work with, and nothing more is expected of him, or wanted with him. The arrangement of the symptoms which have been extracted in the creation of the image depends on what repertory is used. The person who uses Kents arranges his symptoms one way while the one who uses Boenninghausens arranges them in another way. The hole in the card repertory demands still a different arrangements. And in all this what becomes of the individual from whom the symptoms were extracted? Entirely lost sight of.
Thus we have gone on struggling with methods in a measure useful, but wholly unscientific. Because we have been able to learn a scheme or a trick which now and then enabled us to hit the nail on the head we have felt that we were scientists. When the scheme or trick failed us we were not dismayed; in the next case we simply tried a little harder to make it work. Seal has been made to take the place of science. And so we have gone on until the shadow of the undertaker is at the gate of the homoeopathic institution. The doleful last gasps some think they already hear. The thousand whys in the materia medica not only remain unanswered, but there are those who look upon every attempt to find an answer as an impertinence.
And finally, let no one jump to the conclusion that I condemn the repertory, or that I have no use for symptoms. What I condemn is the idea that all that is needed to treat a patient intelligently is symptoms and that the repertory is the last work. In such folly lies death to our cause.
PHILIP RICE.
Hotel Buckingham, New York.
August 30, 1927.
Editor, THE HOMOEOPATHIC RECORDER:.
I want to voice my wholehearted appreciation of DR. Philip Rices very much needed article. Totality of symptoms means one thing to one person and an entirely different thing to someone else. Our present modus operandi leaves entirely too much leeway to the personal equation to ever become very popular with students or to become successfully manipulated by many physicians, and some definite signposts to assist in the work are sorely needed. Dr. Tomhagen worked some along temperatures; however, it was a little too crude to be of much value. Now, if we take into consideration that results are always predestined by its causes, and that it requires certain soils to grow and produce certain manner of vegetation, then can we appreciate that temperament is at least one of the legs necessary to be considered in an intelligent prescription. I want to thank Dr. Rice for voicing his conviction. The present-day direction of wanting to reprove medicine along laboratory lines of blood pressure, etc., may be very interesting but will never be a thousandth part as helpful as an accurate tabulation of medicines as they affect temperaments.
Another much mooted question is “potency.” It took over twenty- three years of study to encounter my first reasonable exposition of when to prefer giving certain potencies, and why?.
Dr. John Hutchinson deserves the wholehearted and unrestricted gratitude of every conscientious homoeopathic physician for his valuable essay.
Now, we come to probably the most important of all the disputed questions, namely “Repetition of Dose.” I would like to read some rules, if there are any, that are somewhat workable. To give a dose and let it work 3-6 months is simply ridiculous, and if the prescription in the case has been S.L. then is beyond my ability to express my thoughts.
In one case I have repeated daily for several years in 1 m., 50 m. and c.m. potencies with steady improvement which ceased the minute S.L. was substituted. I was told that I made a poor selection. Maybe I did, but why was there no aggravation or proving at any time.
The question to be proven or disproven is: “Does too early repetition of dose interfere with curative action? If not, then why not repeat as long as not aggravation results?”.
My rule has been to repeat as soon as symptoms reappear, but that necessitates to let patient know that he has two different kinds of powders and I do not consider that the wisest kind to procedure-it makes the patient the judge.
Sincerely yours,.
H.C. SCHMIDT, M.D.
11100 Sunshine Terrace,.
Los Angeles, Cal.
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.
His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.
Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.
In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.
Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.
Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.