We are frequently disappointed in the results obtained in the treatment of chronic conditions. Careful case-taking, careful repertorization and careful remedy selection in many instances appear to give a negative result as far as any improvement in the patients condition can be observed. This lack of reaction and response to what we have confidently chosen as a similimum is discouraging both to the physician and patient.
Since we are able to recognize what is curable in disease and at the same time have a knowledge of what is curative in medicine and have a sure standard by which the curative can be brought to bear upon the curable, lack of result must depend chiefly upon some unrecognized obstacle to cure.
The problem, then, is rather one of recognizing and removing the obstacles to cure than one of applying the curative principle. The task is rendered more difficult because of the diverse nature of the factors which may act to bar the smooth road to recovery. Space forbids a detailed discussion of these but they may be broadly classified as follows:.
1. Psychological, including emotional.
2. Environmental.
3. Hereditary.
4. Suppressive.
5. Dietetic.
A glance at this classification shows that it automatically divides itself into two groups the first of which, containing the psychological and environmental factors, can not be readily removed from the path of recovery nor can the patient be much influenced by remedy action as long as they are present. Under the conditions of the patients life they are more or less fixed and immutable.
The second group, comprising the hereditary, suppressive and dietetic factors, offers a field where the skill and the authority of the physician can have full play.
Most of us are well aware of the role of the hereditary diseases–psora, syphilis, and sycosis– on the stage of the patients life. We recognize them as the villains in the piece and know how to draw the curtain upon their activities.
Control of the suppressive factor is relatively easy, but depends in large degree upon a recognition by the patient of his physicians authority in all matters pertaining to his, the patients, welfare.
The remaining factor–dietetic– is one which we believe is frequently given no thought by the average homoeopath. We further believe that adequate control of the diet of patients under homoeopathic treatment would conduce to better results from the administration of the similimum. The Hahnemannians of a past generation were much more strict in this respect than we and consistently were more successful in overcoming disease manifestations. We urge the modern Hahnemannian to give this matter of diet more consideration with a view to removing what is very often a real obstacle to cure.– A.D. SUTHERLAND, M.D.
THE OLDEST LIVING ACTIVE HOMOEOPATH.
Toledo 2, Ohio. Editor, The Homoeopathic Recorder:.
Who is the oldest living homoeopath in active practice today? To whom goes the honor? I am past 82. Have been in active practice over 60 years. Am still in active practice caring for Maj. D. T. Pulfords practice and my own. How many can equal that record?.
Fraternally,.
PULFORD A.
The British Homoeopathic Association wishes to announce that it cannot give permission to publish or translate the British Homoeopathic Post-Graduate Correspondence Course to any Journal, Magazine or Paper. The copyright is vested with the Tyler Scholarship Trustees.
RAYMOND E. SEIDEL, M.D.
American Homeopathy Doctor.
Rabe graduated from the New York Homeopathic Medical College and trained under Timothy Field Allen and William Tod Helmuth.
Rabe was President of the International Hahnemannian Association, editor in chief of the Homeopathic Recorder, and he wrote Medical Therapeutics for daily reference. Rabe was Dean and Professor of Homeopathic Therapeutics at the New York Homeopathic Medical College.