XI.THE NATURAL HEALING POWER.
THE vital force, or, as one also states in respect to diseases, the “natural healing power,” is a delicate field on which one has written so much the more, the less one knows about it. It withdraws from the experience of the senses and if one holds only that is the subject of natural scientific investigation which can be studied directly chemicophysically, then one can deny it or at least not consider it an exile it into the field of natural philosophy.
If, however, one knows modern investigation-I refer particularly to the famous investigations on the eggs of sea-urchins by Driesch-then one will point to the fact that effects can be demonstrated in exact studies on living organisms, which are not explainable parley chemicophysically, which on the contrary prove a “non-mechanical natural factor,” as Driesch has shown in a keen analysis.
Since the time of Hippocrates in medicine one has assumed a natural healing power (Ovrls-nature) which has been conceived very differently and about which one has debated considerably, but which was never eliminated from the discussion, even if eve again there is an attempt to deny this force which at that time one conceived usually as a special power (energy).
I mention in particular two physicians from Hahnemanns time who denied the natural healing power or at least esteemed it very little: Brown, who stressed that one should never rely upon the natural healing power, and Rowley(1788, see Neuburger: “Die Lehre von der Heikraft der Natur,” Stuttgart, 1926) who sought to prove in a particularly consequent and embracing way that to relinquish diseases to nature for the most part meant to let them remain unhealed.
As the opinions, so also the conclusions which one drew from the theories presented were also very different. Thereby it does not lack a certain irony that both the praise singers of the all-mightiness of natural healing as well as the disavowers tended to place their hands in their pockets. The first because they believed that if all is left to nature this is for the best; the others who were mostly strict mechanists, believed they could not influence the strictly mechanical course of events anyhow.
What I have indicated by the word “tended” must be interpreted that the distress of the patient often, however, compelled both parties to do something in single cases. That in the process of doing nothing the acclaimers of the all-mighty power of nature were the more consequent is evident because it is not apparent from a mechanistic standpoint why one should not be able to influence the chemicophysical course of events in living organisms.
Hahnemanns position to the natural healing power has been repeatedly the subject of discussions; in particular the opponents shave spoken with great sharpness of Hahnemanns “denial of the natural healing power, of Hahnemanns “denial of the natural healing power,” with sharpness which is amazing in several respects because usually the opponents stand on a mechanistic standpoint, which, logically carried through, should leave no space for such a teleologic conception and one often has the impression in these attacks as though Hahnemann began this calumniation originally and alone.
But, then, is it correct at all that Hahnemann tersely and clearly denied the natural healing power? This would already be doubly remarkable for the reason that he was a vitalist in other things. After all, exact consideration also shows that the facts do not lie s simply. One can judge the problem correctly only in considering Hahnemanns position from his early days and likewise by knowing his general conceptions.
As I have already said when quoting something out of the works above, it is remarkable that among the opponents the works of Hahnemann from his eighth and ninth decades along are considered and likewise historians form no exception. One cannot arrive at a correct estimation of the long life of a scientist in this way. Likewise from the other side Hahnemanns position is never followed from his first works up to his old age. Dozens of places could be cited a which he mentions affirmatively the vital power, “the natural healing power of nature,” of which one often spoke as of a person at the time.
In the “Medical Observations” (1782), he states in regard to “nature”: “Let us follow the footsteps of Hippocrates, Arectaeus, Sydenham, Sarcone, Lautter, Clekhorn, Huxham and Degner and take nature experience as guides” (p.3).
This citation from his earliest independent work shows that he considered nature as his instructor. Incidentally, it may also be noted from this sentence that he professed himself to be a student of the great masters of natural observation and took the careful empiricists as a model.
In his work “Old Damages. . . . .” (1784), nature is frequently mentioned. Only a few examples shall be quoted to show Hahnemanns views in a different light at this time.
Of a female patient Hahnemann relates that he had treated her in vain for a long time; only when she came under different better conditions of life, she soon recovered. To this he remarks: “she recovered as a confirmation of the great principle: nature is very simple in her requirements of only one offers them to her.” This simplicity of nature he stressed many times, so when he states: “Nature is extremely simple, particularly in the means for attainment of her final purpose, then we need only remove the obstacles to healing and nature completes her work” (p.62). Even here seems to be announced a trend of thought which we will much later find expressed more sharply.
He is not a proclaimer of the all-mighty power of the vital for her so that she may complete the healing. This critical position we find more strongly expressed when he states: “Ulcers, boils, and swelling are the forms under which at times nature releases the fluids remaining after diseases which then tend to provoke many damages.”.
He expressed himself similarly in “Instructions for Surgeons” (1789). On the self healing of gonorrhea he states on p.31:”But this endeavor of nature is often unreliable and difficult at least of disgusting tediousness.” Thus her also again we see a somewhat increased skepticism!.
When Munro praised the excellent effect of a remedy in chronic constipation and many other diseases, Hahnemann said: “What nature has done in so long a time itself, what the many drinks and other circumstances do in such a cure, were often the cause of the disease is either only imaginary or enshrouded entirely in darkness, or is often slight and inconsiderable, this is not brought into account here” (Munro,I, 147, 1791). So here he tends to minimize the action of a remedy in contract to other conditions and to attribute to the natural healing power also its also its share in the cure of chronic disease.
Now his expressions during the time at which he was occupied with the elaboration of his new doctrine are of great interest. In the work “On a New Principle. . .” (1796, in Hahnemanns Lesser Medical Writings, Edited by Stapf, Dresden, Bd.1,p..149),he speaks of nature in connection with the discussion on contrarium remedies: “In acute diseases which, when we remove the obstructions to cure even for only a few days, nature usually defeats, or, to which it surrenders if we cannot do this, I say, these application of remedies are proper, to the purpose and sufficient.. . . .”.
From then on we find stressed frequently that acute diseases are often led to cure of themselves also without the intervention of a physician.
He reproaches Brown sharply because he trusts nothing to the power of nature and because he either stimulates or weakens. “What blasphemy of nature!” explains Hahnemann (Stapf.I.p.119).
How he expressed himself some years later in the “Medicine of experience” (1805) we have already seen above. But we will not interrupt the line going from his earliest writings to those of his old age at this important point but once more let the “Medicine of Experience” speak! After he has mentioned reproachfully the endeavors of physicians aimed at excitation of excretions, either sweat, stools. urine, or blood as imperfect, he continues: “Just as if these imperfect and forced imitations were the same thing as what nature effects in the hidden recesses of vitality by her own spontaneous efforts in the form of crisis! Or as if such crises were the best possible method for overcoming the disease and were not rather proofs much more of the imperfection and therapeutic powerlessness of our unaided nature!” (Stapf,II,5.).
In the year 1808 the theme was varied in the following way” “Were not the poor who can secure no drugs often cured much sooner than the wealthy in the same type of illness where the rich patient fills all his windows with great flasks of drugs?” (Stapf, I, 49m, Nr.87.).
But remarkably, while in the last citation he permits nature to cure in the poor without “Ifs and buts ,” in the preceding he has markedly stressed the imperfection and powerlessness of nature. This difference is very noteworthy and will concern us later!.
