PROSTATIC SURGERY OR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT


PROSTATIC SURGERY OR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT. The patient was also suffering from bilateral cataracts, perceiving only light. The ophthalmologist who made the cataractous diagnosis had refused to treat him surgically because of his generally poor state of health and a pyorrheal condition, more specifically.


To the well-trained homoeopath the question of surgery and the surgical treatment of an individual is a rare thing. Not because we are opposed to it where it is apparently the only practical thing to do; but the experience of the entire profession leads one to the contrary conclusion. His choice of treatment, therefore, is homoeopathic and medical as distinguished from mechanical or surgical. Certainly, we try to the best of our ability and skill to apply our remedies curatively even in such cases as may be considered very largely borderline or frankly surgical problems.

When one has had many years of experience in treating a wide variety of such cases, he cannot help feeling a greater degree of confidence in the outcome, knowing that the remedy action often times is curative. Hence, when we were invited to prepare a paper for this Surgical Bureau, our immediate reply was: “Sorry, but we have given up doing surgery for quite a number of years.”

The Chairman then asked for a paper dealing with non-surgical treatment of surgical conditions, or what are usually looked upon as surgical conditions or problems. Therefore, if there is anything new in this paper, both you and your speaker will be surprised.

As a student and practitioner of the homoeopathic art, I invariably prescribe for my patients irrespective of the final diagnosis, having found that the patient is at least in much better condition to withstand the ravages of anaesthesia and surgery, as well as post-operative treatment, if, eventually, surgery does become necessary.

One case comes to mind. A gentleman, now in his middle eighties, was brought in about eight year ago, suffering from polyuria as well as nocturia from ten to twelve times per night. The history included repeated obstruction requiring catheterization. To make matters more interesting, he came to us directly after leaving the hands of a very competent urologist whose diagnosis was prostatic hypertrophy and who advised surgical removal. This the patient and his family did not like to contemplate.

The patient was also suffering from bilateral cataracts, perceiving only light. The ophthalmologist who made the cataractous diagnosis had refused to treat him surgically because of his generally poor state of health and a pyorrheal condition, more specifically.

As a child and a youth he was a “bed wetter” to the age of 19. Born in Germany, he came to this country later on, and suffered an attack of malaria, two attacks of typhoid fever and “never so well since.” At the age of 19 he was treated allopathically for acute gonorrhea. He had a history or rectal trouble, including piles recurring over many years. A tumor, a size of a hens egg, in the right axilla, had been treated allopathically with “bluish ointment” some forty years ago.

He had a severe sinus attack about ten years ago, and now complained of “steam” in his left ear which was aggravated when lying down. He was a chilly person, “rain and wind get me down.” Noises bothered him and produced an unpleasant reaction in the pit of his stomach. He was a heavy smoker but did not drink. His father died from typhoid and his mother from cancer of the face.

Physical examination showed blood pressure 164/94, pulse 78. His teeth were very poor, some broken, others with only black borders. His body was somewhat emaciated. We found he had an enormously large prostate, extremely sensitive to palpation. Our first prescription was Plumbum mur. 30. followed by Sabal serr. 1M, 10M, 50M, and CM. The administration of these two remedies and their varied potencies covered a period of more than two years which was broken up by a dental problem necessitating the administration of Chamomilla mostly in the 200th potency to be followed by the selection of Thuja 200., a constitutional remedy administered in the several potencies up to and including the CM. Except for a very rare need of an intercurrent remedy this valuable agent continues to render good service.

We had occasion to examine our patient some two years ago following an attack of acute diarrhea treated with Phos. acid, and the patient began complaining that the prostatic problem interfered with normal passage of stool. Upon digital examination rectally, we found to our surprise, a very normal, soft prostate- and so informed the patient. This condition, by the way, still remains.

Patient remains content over the cataractous problem and refuses to have any teeth extracted, hence we feel for the time being at least that homoeopathic treatment in this instance has obviated the necessity for prostate surgery.

Carl H. Enstam