I believe that the failure to graduate physicians who have been adequately trained in homoeopathy can be traced to the quality of the instruction received in that subject, rather than to the quantity. I believe that homoeopathy can be properly taught only by men who are thoroughly and enthusiastically conversant with the entire field, who understand fully the difference between it and general medicine, and who recognize the place homoeopathy should hold in relation to general medicine. In addition to all this, the teachers of homoeopathy should be men of established ability in the practice of homoeopathy. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the clinical side of homoeopathy is not enough stressed, or rather not adequately stressed. The real effectiveness of homoeopathic therapeutics can be shown only by the results obtainable at the bedside. The curricula of our medical schools surely cannot be so crowded as to exclude clinical demonstration of pure homoeopathic cure.
In closing this paper I should like to quote to some extent from an editorial appearing in the May issue of The Homoeopathic Recorder which has the title: To Dare– or to Pussy-foot? This article needs no comment fro me. Its meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
The present status of homoeopathy as a school of medicine bids us stop and look backward, as well as forward. Let us acknowledge once again that homoeopathy is founded upon laws; many of these laws we have observed and recorded, and many we recognize to be active although not fully understood, but we their results as long as we progress in an orderly manner. In other words, we recognize a pattern in disease and its cure which is fundamental.
It has been pointed out that homoeopathy and dominant medicine are drawing closer together. Superficially this may seem to be true, but actually and in their very concept they are as far apart as ever. It is true that the dominant school is accepting the fact that minimum doses are often more effective; it is true that the dominant school accepts the difference between primary and secondary effects of drugs. There are other occasional discoveries made within the past few years by the dominant school of medicine that have been known to homoeopathy since Hahnemanns time; but this does not mean that the schools are drawing closer together because there is no greater sympathy in basic principles.
It means, rather, that the dominant school has discovered a few random facts, many of them long accepted by homoeopathic leaders, and long effective in application as a part of the orderly pattern which we have accepted. It does not mean that the fundamental lawfulness has been accepted by general medicine.
In fact the mere statement by professed homoeopaths that there is increasing similarity in the therapeutics of the two schools demonstrates clearly (except in special cases where such a statement is modified by definite limitations) that they themselves do not recognize, after all these years, just what homoeopathy stands for.
There is such a thing as being alive to the possibilities and implications of new discoveries in the various branches of research, and they may be accepted in so far as they can be fitted coherently into the logical pattern of healing. If we cannot grow in knowledge and ability we, as homoeopaths, have not seen the possibilities of our heritage; but let us not confuse the issues. Let us not be so eager to be “modern and scientific” that we cast out the old, tried principles (some of which are just now being “discovered” by modern science). And may we be forgiven our presumption if we, in our desire to be up-to-date, fail to teach our followers the underlying principles without which our tenets would have no basis. It is more than our own work that is in the balance; it is our heritage, to which we can add, or which we can despoil and cast away.
The world is production-mad. Growth and development are judged in terms of exhibition. Statistics and financial figures warp our judgment. Science in its spectacular aspects has become a fetish. It becomes increasingly difficult for those not grounded on principles to stand against the flood-tide of these influences.
Each must make his own decisions according to his best judgment, but if he be not strong to withstand the desire for worldly recognition, to be on the winning side, he will soon find himself in a position of “pussyfooting” to reassure his sterner colleagues and his own conscience, while by peaceful absorption he will pass rather ingloriously into that oblivion conjured up by the very massiveness of that which he so eagerly invoked.
After all, the great test of the worth of homoeopathy lies in the results of its application to the sick. There is often nothing spectacular about these results, judged by modern exhibitionism, for they come in quiet homes, comparatively few ever reaching hospitals. How many cases has the average Hahnemannian, be he ever so busy, that require months of hospitalization? And how many death certificates is he called upon to sign each year? If he has followed the sound principles which our school advocates, even allowing for a percentage of patients to leave him for more spectacular methods, his results are far superior to those wholly “modern and scientific”.
It takes a certain amount of courage to face the facts squarely, but we must recognize that many of our so-called homoeopathic confreres do not recognize the difference between general medicine and homoeopathic medicine. If the homoeopathic school gives us the pattern of coherence for the unassembled and unassimilated units of experimental results we shall have given up our heritage for a mess of pottage. Homoeopathy is governed by “those simple and terrible laws which pervade and govern”. It is truly one manifestation of science. Guys says: “It is not useless to recall this truth, though it is so commonplace: it is because we do not possess “Science” that we have “sciences”. The basic principles of homoeopathy can be demonstrated to be a logical part of Science.
All evolutionary processes are slow, so let us be willing to progress slowly if we must, albeit surely, rather than to rush frantically, aimlessly, from one series of “wonderful discoveries” to another, only to shamefacedly return years hence to some long-forgotten discovery of history. . . .
It is time, I think, that the profession took stock of itself, individually, to learn what are its assets and what are its greatest liabilities. In a broad sense, its assets are those sincere, earnest and enthusiastic men who practice their art in accordance with the principles enunciated by our great master. In the same way, its liabilities are those hypocritical and lackadaisical men who give lip-service only to homoeopathy and have bastardized their art by an unorthodox and illogical recourse to the methods of so-called “modern scientific medicine”. You must ask yourselves into what class you fall. Can each of you, after careful personal analysis, truthfully assert that he is an asset? Or must some of you, after honest thought, shamefacedly admit that you are liabilities? I must beseech you to undertake an earnest self-examination with respect to these questions, realizing that the credit in which homoeopathy is held is in direct relationship to the professional practices of its individual members.
BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT.
Allan D. Sutherland was born in Northfield, Vermont in 1897, delivered by the local homeopathic physician. The son of a Canadian Episcopalian minister, his father had arrived there to lead the local parish five years earlier and met his mother, who was the daughter of the president of the University of Norwich. Four years after Allan’s birth, ministerial work lead the family first to North Carolina and then to Connecticut a few years afterward.
Starting in 1920, Sutherland began his premedical studies and a year later, he began his medical education at Hahnemann Medical School in Philadelphia.
Sutherland graduated in 1925 and went on to intern at both Children’s Homeopathic Hospital and St. Luke’s Homeopathic Hospital. He then was appointed the chief resident at Children’s. With the conclusion of his residency and 2 years of clinical experience under his belt, Sutherland opened his own practice in Philadelphia while retaining a position at Children’s in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department.
In 1928, Sutherland decided to set up practice in Brattleboro.