CHAPTER XII, Continued.
The practice of medicine is an art. This art makes use of science. The art is not commercial and it becomes a business only when degraded. However, the laborer is worthy of his hire and there is no doubt that the practice of worthy medicine will bring to all its devotees amply material remuneration just as it brings to patients adequate reward.
No school of practice looks upon medicine as an art more than does the homoeopathic. The sick are not cured by science, by so-called faith, by mind, by any method or agent whatever; unless the administration of that method of agent is accomplished by art. If man were merely an animated body, a machine energized by some external power, the converse might be true; but he is more than mechanical, than animal, than tissue, or even a combination of these. Any healing of this complex and wonderful organism must reckon with it in its entirety, and not only with its species in general, but with any and every individual specimen of it.
Homoeopathy differs in no smallest degree today from what it was on the day of Hahnemanns death. I make no account of unhomoeopathic practices existing among those not yet fully imbued with the homoeopathic understanding, though externally adherent to the cause. I speak of homoeopathy–the science –and reiterate that it is unchanged either in precept or practice, and that the rules elaborated in the Organon are the rules of usage today.–FRANK W. PATCH, M.D.
While homoeopathy is being slowly rediscovered the world continues to revel in crude medicine. Much of this medicine is unfit for the human being. Much of it is, however, looked upon by the mass of mankind as the only help available in sickness. Widespread propaganda from many different sources leaves little room and opportunity for better aid. But there is better provided. It is just as available, necessary, and effective today as it was over a century ago, when Samuel Hahnemann built homoeopathy on an enduring foundation.
That foundation has never crumbled.
In truth the edifice has been assaulted by enemies, neglected by sponsors, and transduced by friends, but as a complete structure its preservation is assured by virtue of inherent soundness. Yet, like all good things, the practical utility, the unique values, and the unapproached superiority of the Law of Similars in medical care, have been and will continue to be ignored when and wherever other aims are more active than that of absolute cure.
For instance, a doctor of another school was distressed over the conditions of his sick child, thus far unhelped by allopathic skill. He called in a friend who was also a physician, but of the homoeopathic school for medicine. The latters prescription gave immediate relief and prompt recovery. The father was appreciative, but when asked why he did not study and learn to do likewise, he replied that under such a system the visits required were so few he did not see how a doctor could make a living!.
Unfortunately, however, the visits cannot always be so few. This for the reason that our modern states of illness are aggravated by our modern habits of live, so far removed from the conservative routine that obtained in similar circles years ago. That is, the stress of super-activities and pleasures and consequent over-indulgences, frequently met by what are considered restorative in the way of nostrums, all implies and actually results in addictions that render the constitution persistently abnormal. From such a state, either cure or recovery is often a matter of time and skill, even when the right course is pursued if pursued at all.
The foundation of homoeopathy are facts. They support the truth that in the healing of the sick that law must be respected and followed which says Likes are to be treated by likes. And so the need is established for a clear comprehension of the evidences of vital disorder. Just what vital disorder is we may not know. It is not yet permitted us to know. We have never seen the vital spark since it began to illumine the temple that God made and pronounced done in His own image.
It is borne in upon the consciousness that we are not allowed to enter at will the chambers of the living temple. There are paths we may not tread nor follow, closed doors that we may not open, but it is given men to perceive and ponder all the evidences of physiological and pathological phenomena that spring from or have their origin in the vital organism.
It is on faithful observation of these evidences that utilization of the law of cure must rest. The demand that this observation be exact, unimpeded, unadorned, is imperative.
Study of life and health, of disease and its cure, is full of interest, wonderfully absorbing interest, interest that constitutes almost the paramount motive of the medical mans career. This study introduces him constantly to new phase of mankinds physical and moral nature. Ultimately these phases become well understood. Moreover, many a patient reveals by his mere presence his essential personality to a clear-minded and experienced physician. A strong statement, but it is a true one for many cases. And no good physician fails to regard temperament as well as the purely physical states.
Knowledge of a single fact not known as related to any other fact, or of many facts not comprehended under any general law, does not reach the meaning of science. Science is knowledge reduced to law and embodied in system. –E. H. VAN DEUSEN, M.D.
Homoeopathy is idealistic and pragmatic. It is pragmatic because it works every time that it is properly applied, and it is idealistic because it provides the correct result, the result that is safest, most desired, and best. A difficulty lies with the incompetent exponents of a law and a system that is as perfect as anything can be made for the use of human beings who are anything but alike in their ability and productiveness. In the nature of things– of everything with which we are acquainted or have any practical working knowledge, its utility must be decided by the success made of it in different hands.
Yet, could anything be less true than such a proposition? The merit of a thing lies in its character and not in what employment is made of that thing or its character. Homoeopathy is not entitled of the main subject. A tyro in anything cannot be an exponent of its valuable truth or utility. The two objects are quite distinct, and they properly have no relation to each other just so far as they fail to coordinate. In view of this state of things, the fault often found with homoeopathy belongs elsewhere. It belongs to the person who failed to demonstrate homoeopathy and should be so designated.
Furthermore, it may not be homoeopathy in any particular, as it is often the case that something quite unlike it is denominated homoeopathy, which of course is about the worst thing that could happen to all concerned. Therapy of homoeopathy cannot be estimated in terms of diseases or even remedies. It must be done in terms of patients.
The science of homoeopathy is in the vanguard of present scientific knowledge.–LAWRENCE M. STANTON, M.D.
It is a pity that science should ever be misunderstood or misapprehended, since it is truth, nothing more or less. And what is not true is not science.
All truth is demonstrable (?). Science is demonstrable. If it is not capable of demonstration under the right circumstances and conditions it is not science.
In relation to medicine in particular, science is demonstrable truth. What does not lend itself to medical demonstration is not medical science. Of course there are grades of value in the demonstrations of science in medicine, since the utility of one demonstration may be advantageous while that of another may be questionable as to its worth. Therefore, science being actual fact may be worth while or not worth while.
The point is, particularly in medicine, whether the fact elucidated benefits. This may be determined, but only by artistry. The scientist must be able to determine what is applicable and what is to be rejected in a given set of circumstances. They alter cases immeasurably and so invite not only scientific reasoning but also the relevancy of a particular principle under consideration. Relevancy implies a special suitability to the subject of treatment–the patient. This is too often lost sight of, hence the limitations of science as requisitioned. In such event science is futile.
The departure from Hahnemanns teachings have rapidly multiplied.–ADOLPH LIPPE, M.D.
The utility, stability, and consequent rewards of Materia Medica Pura instil an optimism that justifies itself with every homoeopathic prescription. That prescription has maintained its unique place in practical medicine for over a century. Unlike many other things, it is susceptible both to conservation and to progress.
The prescription accomplishes its mission so well as a foregone conclusion that the capable prescriber anticipates and accepts the results which more than often are wonderful, and he accepts these results as merely commonplace items of the days work. They are noted and then forgotten. Which is a pity! They should be made a part of routine record, with their unique phases stressed. Not one single item is commonplace; every verification is important, and faithful preservation for future reference cannot fail to inspire and aid the early career of the homoeopathist.
