EDITORIAL


EDITORIAL. Robert H Farley

SPREADING HOMOEOPATHIC

 

For several years now t…


SPREADING HOMOEOPATHIC

For several years now the writer has been observing a way of spreading homoeopathy and it has proved to be quite successful. Nakedly and honestly, the man object in spreading homoeopathy is to make homoeopathic patients out of those who are not. If there is any other compelling reason for it this writer does not know it. There may be a homoeopath here and there who enjoys the institutional complex, the hospital compartments, the instrumental furniture, the laboratory gadgets, regimented procedure; even the silent patter of young nurses feet may take a space in the Aesculapias soul but we are speaking here of spreading homoeopathy, not anything else.

Moreover, it is no exaggeration to say, were too top notch homoeopathy universal, nine hundred and ninety-nine and nine-tenths of the materialistic fixtures of modern medicine could be rented out as Inquisitional museums or automobile stalls. There figures are of course only a rough estimate but we have been doing straight homoeopathic practice for well toward a half century, both acute and chronic, including sixteen or seventeen years of obstetrics and a minimum of traumatic surgery, have records complete from the start, and can prove, unless they were forged during sleep, that the homoeopathic outlook and practice simplifies many otherwise serious problems almost to the zero point. Instead of homoeopathy “having a place in medicine” the whole unnatural mess should be displaced by it.

But in these days of hysterical advertising of disease specialties (not of specialists, oh dear, no!) there are no glamour tactics left for the miserable homoeopath. As for going about lecturing to clubs and promiscuous groups on the over forward “strides” (the latter always ten jumps ahead of the former) that are racing on in medicine, please send in statistics as to when that has been done by homoeopaths and send forecasts as to the things that might happen should they try it.

So this brings us back to where we started, that there is a method that does not fracture decency yet brings results. Of course, by far the greatest asset in homoeopathic practice is the real improvement apparent to all that we create in our patients. This kind of news travels far and wide. Nothing is so effective as news by way of the grapevine. The better mouse trap brings the weary medical pilgrim to the office door. The law of least action if still available.

Our little scheme, then, is merely a tonic to the normal functioning of the vine. It is the use of well considered pamphlets or tracts which explain what the patient should know about his kind of treatment-and no more. These placed on the waiting room table or handed out on request is all that is necessary for the laymen. It has been surprising how fast such pamphlets disappear and how simple faith has become deep appreciation and communicated to outsiders. Even strangers have been known to come in and get these booklets off the table. Patients often take more than one at a time so as to give them to friends.

Of course it is impossible to know exactly what percentage of the increase to our homoeopathic family may be credited to this tactic but we do know that it is far from negligible. Were this service to be extended to explain the fallacies of mass medication and the end results of it game would be still more lively. But, fortunately or unfortunately so far, life has been too short for that undertaking.

The writer uses but two pamphlets (besides literature furnished by The National Physician’s Committee concerning officialized medicine). Of these the one most remarked about was Homoeopathy, originally issued by The Boenninghausen Club and now from some motive or other discontinued by The American Foundation for Homoeopathy. (We have received word that Homoeopathy is to be reprinted-Ed). Many readers have expressed admiration for its beauty of style and the dignity of its content.

It is strange that others should appreciate these qualities more than the doctors apparently do. It is unfortunate that this classic, for such it really is, should become obsolete. A new Boenninghausen Club should be formed to make it live again. This, and Dr. Green’s Homoeopathy; Philosophy; Practice, it should be advertised in every issue of the Recorder, if not in other homoeopathic journals. Your Associate Editor, R.E.S.H., hereby hopes these suggestions may become activated and helpful to all.

Robert Farley