IT is quite unnecessary, as it would be inappropriate, for me to present to this audience, composed as it is of representative Homoeopathic physicians gathered from all parts of the civilized world, any arguments to prove the superiority of Homoeopathic therapeutics over all other methods of healing. On the other hand, in this Columbian year, when all religious, educational, and scientific bodies are holding congresses, it is fitting that we should show to the world what Homoeopathy has accomplished, and what it has to offer in contrast to Old-School teaching and practice.
It has devolved upon me to prepare to review of Homoeopathic therapeutics in our special department, that of ophthalmology. So much has been written lately upon this topic, that it is with diffidence I venture to discuss a subject so ably treated by other, and I crave your indulgence if much that I have to say seems trite.
This is an age of exact scientific investigation. Men demand facts, and not theories; and I propose to give you the facts of ophthalmic therapeutics, Homoeopathically considered, as compared with the treatment of the Old School.
It will not be inappropriate on this occasion for us to inquire what Homoeopathy has accomplished in this special department, and whether it offers any advantages over other methods. If Homoeopathy is, as the illustrious Dunham expressed it, the “Science of Therapeutics,” then the Homoeopathic specialist should be more scientific in the choice and application of curative agents than one who relies simply upon traditional, or physiological and empirical uses of drugs; and he should be correspondingly more successful. Does experience demonstrate this to be true? Our first duty is to our patients; our first motive is to cure them as speedily and as surely as possible. We should “prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.”
We want the best. Is Homoeopathy the best? If not, let us known it. And if it, then let us demonstrate it so conclusively as to compel universal acknowledgment. It would be interesting and instructive to compare the results of the treatment of an equal number of cases of a given disease under the two systems, were reliable statistics available. We can contrast the ordinary treatment of eye-disease, as recommended in recent Old-School treatises, with the Homoeopathic treatment outlined in the latest and best work on the subject-dr. Norton’s Ophthalmic Diseases and Therapeutics.
That we may intelligently discuss the question, let us first clearly understand what we mean by Homoeopathic therapeutics as applied to ophthalmic affection. If we mean only the application of those drugs for the cure of morbid conditions which have actually caused similar functional disturbances and pathological lesions, them our resources are very much restricted; although in this limited interpretation of the subject, we have a number of valuable remedies. There are several reasons why our armamentarium is so much curtailed in this particular.
In the first place, the records of poisoning furnish us with but few specific effects upon the eye, and our provings leave not, in many cases, been pushed to the extent of producing actual tissue changes. But the most important reason is the lack of skilled and accurate observation, which is apparent in the pathogenesis of drugs. Most recorded eye-symptoms are subjective, and frequently unreliable, because not rightly interpreted. Had every prover been subjected to a careful examination by a competent and experienced oculist, before and after a proving, and the condition of refraction, ophthalmoscopic appearance of fundus, etc, been accurately recorded, the provings would have been infinitely more valuable to the specialist.
The proving of Duboisin by Dr. Deady, published in the Trans. of Am. Hom. O. and O. Society, 1880, is a model worthy of imitation, although we cannot help wishing that the eyes of the provers had been previously examined, and conditions noted. Eye-diseases are rarely purely local, especially those serious affections which endanger vision; but are usually the result of some systemic disorder, and require constitutional treatment. Similarly drugs do not affect the eye alone, but produce, in connection with eye- symptoms, indications of disturbance of remote organs and general constitutional effects.
If, then, certain morbid conditions of the eye disappear under the exhibition of a remedy prescribed in strict conformity with the law of “Similia,” for general constitutional symptoms or for affections of other organs, is it not fair and logical to accept these eye-symptoms as reliable indications for that remedy in another similar case, even if the constitutional symptoms of the first case are lacking? is it not also probable that such a remedy, if fully proved in suitable doses, would cause the symptoms which it cures; and is not a verified symptomatology, acquired in the way suggested, a logical basis of Homoeopathic therapeutics?
With this understanding of our topic, and I think it is a reasonable one, we have an extensive armamentarium of specific- remedies. Allen and Norton’s Ophthalmic Therapeutics was compiled in this way from verified and trustworthy symptoms, and we owe an immense debt of gratitude to the authors and to the other faithful and skilful surgeons of the New York Ophthalmic Hospital, to whose labors we are largely indebted for the development of the resources of our school in this special department. In the possession of these specific remedies the Homoeopathic oculist has a great advantage over one of the Old School; but a thorough knowledge of drug effects upon the whale system, is a requisite for successful prescribing, as well as a familiarity with general diseases.
We cannot successfully prescribe for eye-symptoms alone, nor can we ignore the relationship between ocular affections and diseases of other organs or the frequent dependence of eye-diseases upon constitutional dyscrasiae. For this reason an extended experience in general practice is very desirable before undertaking special work. The Homoeopathic oculist, with these added means of cure at his command,-I say “added,” for of course all resources of the healing art, from whatever source, are his to choose or to refuse,-can achieve results impossible without them.
When all mechanical, local, and surgical measures are powerless, the suitable Homoeopathic remedy will often preserve or restore sight and cure disease, when Old-School medicine is confessedly of no avail. Many an operation can be obviated, and many an unfortunate sequence of operation can be obviated, and many an unfortunate sequence of operation be averted. Pain, in the large majority of cases, can be controlled without the use of narcotics, with their attendant unpleasant and sometimes dangerous effects, and the course of many diseases be materially shortened.
I promised to give you facts rather than theories, and in order to prove the truth of my assertions, let us critically examine and compare the therapeutic measures of the two schools in various affections. First, What does Old-School medicine offer for the relief and cure of eye diseases?.
In order to answer this question intelligently, I have carefully read and reviewed a recent text-book by a recognized authority-Noyes’s Diseases of the Eye-and noted every remedy recommended, with the indication for its employment. I have, of course, not noted local or surgical treatment, or the correction of refractive or muscular errors.
The purely therapeutic resources, as therein outlined, comprise forty-three remedies, almost all of which are prescribed upon the most general principles, and where specific indications are given, they are most meagre in contrast with our methods of careful individualization. To particularize: “appropriate” general or constitutional treatment, such as alternatives, derivatives, stimulants, etc., are sometimes advised without explicit mention, and in other cases Cod-liver oil, Iron Quinine, Arsenic, Malt and Hypophosphites, especially in anaemic debility, scrofulosis, etc.
The following table shoes a list of other medicines mentioned, and the diseases for which they are recommended.
Diuretics and Purgatives, especially Rhubarb and Sada, Sal sada, Rochelle salts.-Phlyctenular keratitis, scleritis rheumatica, iritis, cataract, retinitis (apoplectica and albuminurica), amotio-retinae, neuritis, neuro-retinitis.
Salicylate of Sada, Lithates, Liquor potash and other alkalies-Rheumatic and gouty affections generally, particularly in iritis, neuritis, neuro-retinitis, periostitis, tendonitis, acute phlegmonous eczema of the lids, staphyloma of the sclera.
Antifebrine, Antipyrine, Sulphonal, Morphia, Opium, Bromides, Chloral and Phenacetine.-To relieve pain.
Iodide of potash. -Spasm of orbicularis, episcleritis, iritis, to arrest development of cataract, to clear opacities of the vitreous, choroiditis, retinitis, atrophy of the optic nerve, periostitis orbitae, tendonitis, generally in syphilitic and rheumatic affections.
