EDITORIAL


EDITORIAL. The policy of isolationism that we have so tenaciously enforced for such a long time is bearing its obvious. deadly harvest. If the Monroe Doctrine has had its merits in the history of the United States, it has been superseded since World War II by the “One World” idea and principle. It is high time for us to revise these antiquated policies in the homoeopathic field.


THE ROAD OF SURVIVAL.

One of the primary and fundamental attributes of life is adaption. Modern medicine is becoming more aware of it since L.L.Whyte published his book in1948, The Next Development of man, 1 and Hans Selye, The Physiology and of Exposure to Stress in 1950.2,3 More recently Julius Jensen added his magistral contribution in his book, Modern Concepts in Medicine,4 emphasizing the dynamic, synthetic, functional approach to an integrated concept of medicine, Hahnemannian tradition which has been, for centuries, overwhelmed and practically silenced by the Galenian school which is principally static, analytic and concerned with structure rather than function. Hahnemann, like all real geniuses, has been misinterpreted and misunderstood because he was way ahead of his time.

Jensen introduces a new aspect of modern science, born from that same vitalistic, functional source, Cybernetics, which be defines as:

..the field of control and communication in the animal and the machine information, the principle of feed-back in the machine and in the body….The study thereof might well become the common purpose of the physicist, physiologist and mathematician.

Under the caption of “Cybernetics,”5 Jensen studies the enzymes and enzyme transportation system, the vitamins, regulating substances without which the body cannot synthesize, the nervous system and the coordination of the adaptive processes.

The suggestive synthesis of the notions and ideas emerging form the modern development of the notions and ideas emerging from the modern development of physics, biochemistry and physiology lead s deliberately to the dynamic aspect of medicine which is still struggling for dominance. The adaptation and integration is still struggling for dominance. The adaptation and integration of all these recently acquired views attest the growth and vigorous life of medicine today, and the slow infiltration of the homoeopathic philosophy.

It is really exciting and stimulating to witness these steps, to discover the trends confirming Hahnemanns vitalistic concepts, to follow these efforts toward his four-dimensional tenet of man-as-a-whole-in-his-environment and the necessity of individualization in the treatment of disease.

If on the other hand, we consider what Hahnemanns followers have contributed to the expansion, growth and fructification of Homoeopathy, we have reasons to understand why, for the last fifty years, we have reached so quickly the stage of stagnation and decadence. We have so smugly derived our substance and sustenance from the Organon, like the rat in a piece of cheese, contributing but clinical confirmations and hardly any new provings, blind to the changes and progress around us in the medical and scientific fields.

Our books and the basic instruments of application and practice of our doctrine are still in the style and fashion of the Gay Nineties.6 No wonder the new generation, nourished with the semantics of a changed, up-to-date vocabulary, fails to become interested when confronted with our literature.

It is inconceivable to us that Homoeopathy could die-no truth can ever die-but is identity can and will disappear if not effort is exerted pretty soon to integrate it in the great field of medicine. This will require a complete remodeling of our teachings,of our repertories and materia medica. It will require, here in the United States, the integrations of out doctrine in the medical brotherhood of which we should be a part as a therapeutic specialty. This would provide for us the clinical material, the teaching facilities and appropriate resources for research.

The policy of isolationism that we have so tenaciously enforced for such a long time is bearing its obvious. deadly harvest. If the Monroe Doctrine has had its merits in the history of the United States, it has been superseded since World War II by the “One World” idea and principle. It is high time for us to revise these antiquated policies in the homoeopathic field.

To conclude: the basic tenets of Homoeopathy-the law of similars. the Arndt-Schultz rule, the patient-as-a-whole and the principle of individualization-all these concepts are emerging and increasingly utilized in medicine under different guises. It behooves us to rightfully stamp them with Hahnemanns name and the word he selected for his doctrine: Homoeopathy.

Allan D. Sutherland