The results with dabbling, compared o what may accomplished with consistent constitutional prescribing, are indifferent. From that kind of practice patients are more easily lured to try various other treatments; and strangely enough, the doctor also, instead of sharpening his homoeopathic wits, often shifts to other makeshifts or specialities. So the distinctiveness of the school becomes more and more blunted; and although the “advance” of medical science continually throws up new gadgets to palliate effects of the fundamental error, that does not retard dissolution, but actually hastens it, by overriding the distinctive homoeopathic remand.
Moreover, anyone who has practiced homoeopathy from the standpoint of the organic principles knows that those patients who have dosed themselves or have been dosed in the way advocated by certain interested lay promoters in this country and across, are the hardest to cure. Their reactive power (except for stress troubles) is spoiled. With some of these patients radical systemic reactions cannot be effected. For these reasons ballyhooing the medicines and a few keynotes can never permanently augment the practice of homoeopathy.
In short, lay prescribing as it is usually done, that is, without understanding and conforming to the dictates of homoeopathic philosophy is, from the desideratum of getting good, results, a confounded nuisance.
I am sorry of disagree with so earnest na gentleman as the one who wrote me, but it is a reasonable disagreement anyhow- R.E.S.HAYES, M.D., WATERBURY, CONN.
