THE SCIENCE OF THERAPEUTICS IN OUTLINE



And so the gentle use of muscles must be considered more similar to , than identical with the severe or long-continued exercise which has occasioned the lameness.

There is a kind of isopathic practice, favored by some who believe that, a higher attenuation, or the finer particles, will antidote a lower attenuation, or the coarser particles, of the same drug.

Such persons seem to forget, if they have ever known, the fact that to attenuation of a drug is made up of uniform particles- that in a one-grain powder of the sixth trituration, for example, there are particles, varying in size from the smallest of that attenuation up to the medium, if not maximum, of the fifth and the medium of the fourth and minimum of the third. If, then, it be true that one attenuation antidotes another-that a medicine may thus directly contradict itself-in the same organism, the posology, as well as pharmacology, upon which the practitioner must depend, would present insuperable obstacles to his success.

The futility of such isopathy must be apparent to all, except the votaries of that mystic dynamism before which the methods and meters of science are only rank abomination.

And there is a yet worse form of isopathic theory and practice, favored by some who believe that, a disease may be removed by the use of its own products.

The absurdity of such a belief is equalled only by the worthlessness and obnoxiousness of the remedies to which it leads.

4. HOMOEOPATHIC.

It is admitted by all writers on the principles or theories of medicine, that many cures are effected by agents known to induce affections similar to those for which they are administered.

This recognition of the principle expressed in the terms similia similibus curantur, has often appeared in books, essays and editorials; but curantur still in the prescriptions made by all classes of physicians in all parts and ages of the world.

From the time Hippocrates wrote – “Vomiting is cured by vomiting” -down through all the centuries of medical history, writers have noted the removal of diseases by remedies known to induce similar diseases.

That the relation expressed by the term similar, between two affections of the human body, is concievable, and that it may serve as a guide in the selection of a remedy, when the affections producible by various remedies are known, no person, of even ordinary medical learning, will venture to question.

One affection is similar to another when the distinctive and most constant symptoms of the one are like those of the other. The similarity is not such as to establish an identity of conditions, nor a perfect equality, in any sense. The practical comparison, instituted, is between the exponents or symptoms of the disease, in the case presented for treatment, and those of the affections induced by the several agents from which a remedy is to be chosen. And the symptoms, to be thus compared, are not the subjective alone, nor the objective alone, but all of both, in any way and by any means discoverable.

Upon a through examination it is found that, the relationship, similia, not only points out right remedies in a large number of cases, as universally admitted, but that it does so in all cases susceptible of cure by pathogenetic means, or the institution of artificial affections. Aside from the use of palliative means, sometimes requisite, especially where no cure is expected,-

SIMILIA IS THE GENERAL LAW IN SPECIAL THERAPEUTICS.

It is not my purpose, in this sketch of outlines, to enter at any length upon explanations and proofs; but I may remark that the Homoeopathic law, at first regarded as a principle of limited applicability -as true and useful in certain cases-was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann to be of universal tenure and applicability in that department of therapeutics which I have designated as Special.

Looking back over accumulated medical records, he found that medicines, distinguished in the removal of certain well-marked diseases, had been known to induce similar affections when taken by persons in health.

Analyzing case with a remarkable keeness of perception and strictness of logic, he studied medicinal forces singly and in the various mixtures of polypharmacy, as to their influence upon persons sick and persons well, finding few apparent and no real exceptions to his law of cure.

And now, for seventy years, other practitioners, accepting that law as their guide, have been successful according to their faithful obedience to its demands in the treatment of the sick.

Every visitation of such well-marked and dreaded diseases as Asiatic cholera, Yellow fever, Scarlet fever, Epidemic dysentery, and Diphtheria, in fields occupied by the followers of Hahnemann, has had the effect to increase their reputation and to magnify the law Similia.

One who compares the history of the law of gravitation with the history of this therapeutic law, will be struck with the many points of resemblance. The first suggestion, the patient research in the records of the past, the positive tests, the practical applications, the unfavorable first impression upon the learned, the apparent exceptions, the absurd opposition, and the steady progress and triumphs, have been quite parallel in the two cases.

Newton said of his law –

“What the efficient cause of these attractions is I do not here inquire. What I call attraction may possibly be caused by some impulse, or in some other way unknown to us.

“I have explained the phenomena of the heavens and the sea by a the force of gravity; but the cause of gravity I have not yet assigned.”

Hahnemann said of his law –

“As this therapeutic law of nature clearly manifests itself in every accurate experiment and research, it consequently becomes an established fact, however unsatisfactory may be the scientific theory of the manner in which it takes place. I attach no value whatever to any explanation that could be given on this head.”

But in one respect there is a marked difference in the case. The law of gravity had its explanations and proofs in figures, by mathematical and astronomical demonstrations, and so escaped such fanciful and absurd explanations and proofs as, sometimes, have been thrust upon the world, by ignorant enthusiasts, in favor of the law Similia.

But I must hasten to the close of my sketch.

Taking the Homoeopathic principle or relationship, as the paramount law in Special Therapeutics it is proper to ask-What are its requirements?

In the solution of this question we must be led to all the subordinate principles of special therapeutic science.

I must here make a statement, rendered necessary by the misrepresentations of many writers, who say, that the proper understanding and application of the Homoeopathic law does not require a thorough knowledge of Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology and Diagnostics. How preposterous to suppose that a practitioner can make a proper examination of a case, presented for treatment, when ignorant of the field and phenomena of healthy life and the changes wrought by various morbific causes?

His comparison of symptoms-morbific on the one hand and pathogenetic on the other-taking in the superficial, the coincident, and the consequent, without distinction, would be as likely to lead him astray as to a choice of the remedy required; or, in other words, his similimum might be of a most inferior quality without his being aware of the fact.

The Homoeopathic system of therapeutics requires, in its practitioners, the best medical as well as general culture possible to men who practice the healing art.

MATERIA MEDICA PURA.

The first requirement of the law Similia in practical therapeutics is a Materia Medica, consisting of drug effects. or data, furnished by true and rigid experimentation with the different agents to be employed as remedies; such experimentation to be upon persons in health, and upon the lower animals, under circumstances and in ways best calculated to exhibit the pathogenetic character of the several agents fully and truly. The data, so furnished, constitute.

A POSITIVE SYMPTOMATOLOGY.

And this positive symptomatology embraces-

1. Subjective Symptoms; or, the abnormal sensations, emotions and thoughts of provers, male and female, in good health, free from counteracting or disturbing, influences, instructed in proper modes of observing, locating and describing their symptoms, all gathered in one place, favorable for the purpose, under the direction and close questionings of competent instructors; the number and character of the provers being such as to render them fairly representative of the average of the human family under similar influences.

2. Objective Symptoms; or, the abnormal appearances and products of the provers under pathogenetic influence, closely inspected by skilled observers, aided by all the means found useful in the study of similar affections in the sick, so as to determine their qualities and quantities, localities, times and peculiarities.

The drug-effects being thus obtained, the next important step is to have them so collated and published as to be at once accessible and clear.

J P Dake