Surgery is altogether a different branch of study and is a matter of experience but not a science. It can be taken help of by a follower of any branch of medicine without the least detriment to the principles of treatment, provided the surgery is had recourse to in accordance with its true sphere. Unfortunately it is taken help of where real treatment should have been followed.
Before entering into the details of the subject a few words may be necessary why surgery has not been given the name of “Science”. A science properly so called must be a collection of scientific truths, that is, generalised principles arrived at by methods of induction, deduction, difference, etc. which are the means of ascertaining truths. So far as surgery is concerned nobody can say that is particulars are so many generalised principles and have been arrived at in the above way. Each case of inflammatory swelling under the principles of surgery has to be operated upon and dealt with on its own merits and according to the circumstances peculiar to it; hence surgery is not a science but a subject based upon individual experience.
We, as homoeopaths, can certainly take the help of surgery whenever occasion requires but its true sphere must be ascertained because, if we have recourse to it either before or after the time when we really need it, we do a great deal of injury to the patient.
The more we adopt surgery the less the treatment becomes a success. A method of treatment that is truly successful will not need it. Why and how? Because what we operate upon is the result of disease and we want to do away with the result; but there should be no result or ultimate in a successful method of treatment.
A tangible result or an ultimate which is the true subject of surgery is formed when the disease of the morbid vital current is allowed to flow for a very long time in the system so that it is sheer folly or ignorance of the prescriber on account of which the morbid vital current is not put into order within the shortest possible time but is allowed to flow continuously and the continuous influx of morbidity is allowed to manufacture the ultimate. Had the prescriber been able to cure the vital disorder by the true method of treatment, the formation of the ultimate would have been an impossibility.
Unless we can definitely ascertain where to and where not to use the knife we may unwittingly, nay innocently, injure the patient. In a case where an ultimate has already been formed and we are called by the family to act as a surgeon our duty is to pause where, in spite of the ultimate, the patient has a totality of symptoms; even if there are no symptoms we may still prescribe upon the basis of the original totality of the case that may be remembered by the patient.
In that case a higher potency may be needed and if, under this circumstance, there comes in a reaction we ought to presume that Natures voice was only faint, dull or subdued and not altogether extinguished. Now our course is clear, we are to go on increasing the potency; the reaction will be stronger and stronger and the particular disease feebler and feebler up to the perfect cure. But where this stage is passed, the knife is the only help. We must, however, be sure that the patient is not cured, though the tangible ultimate is knifed away.
From the above observations we can clearly understand the true province of surgery and unless it is used after the occasion arises for it, we really apply a method which is anything but similar; and thereby we hush up the natural voice asking for our help in the form of symptom-totality. As long as there is or shall be the symptom-totality we should only apply for the cure a potentized remedy in accordance with the symptom-totality on the law of similars. Whenever we do otherwise i.e. proceed not on the law of similars but otherwise, not only our work does not further the process of cure but it does injury also.