– TESTE A, GROUP REMEDIES,
– Although it frequently happens that the mere names of disease mislead the practitioner much more frequently than they enlighten him, we are, nevertheless, obliged to acknowledge that this is not always so. When I say croup, measles, purple-rash, scarlatina, variola, itch, typhus, yellow-fever, plague, cholera, and various other maladies, I am certain that each of these diseases, so far from awakening in the minds of those who hear these names, a vague symptomatic abstraction, ass is the case when we say angina, catarrh, ascites, rheumatism, etc., presents, on the contrary, the fixed image of a pathological state, which scarcely ever varies in its manifestations, and is, therefore, always, or nearly always, identical. I repeat, almost always, not in every case, for after all these does not seem to be anything absolutely true in pathology ; an absolute pathological truth seems to be a mere fiction, a sort of ideal, whose realization seems incompatible on the one hand, with the infinite diversities of the human organism, and , on the other hand, with the constant, change of conditions in which the morbific cause, be it ever so unchangeable itself, is obliged to act at more or less prolonged intervals. This is the reason why one variola epidemic is not exactly like another, one scarlatina epidemic not exactly like another, one scarlatina epidemic not exactly like another, etc. Nevertheless, it is incontestably true, that all epidemic diseases, be they observed in any country or at any period, preserve, if not all their symptoms, at least all those which belong to them characteristically. Hence, the same drug, or rather the same series of drugs, have been found applicable to most of the cases of a particular epidemic. Consequently it was in itself a rational proceeding to look for a specific remedy or a specific mode of treatment in this or that epidemic. Even Hahnemann had sometimes to resort to such a proceeding.
 – But if this be the plausible side of the specific doctrine, it is not the less true that in order to have a perfectly legitimate basis of existence, this doctrine should, above all things, have demonstrated the validity of the following two principles :
 – 1st. Essential sameness or symptomatic invariability of all diseases.
 – 2d. Essential sameness of the physiological effects of all drugs.
 – We shall find out presently, in examining Hahnemann’s opinions concerning the individualization of diseases, to what an extent all diseases, whether natural or medicinal, may be considered essential.
 – D. “Every physician,” say Hahnemann, “adopting a treatment of such a general character, however unblushingly he may effect to be an homoeopathist, is and will always remain, a generalizing alloeopathist ; as without the most especial individualization, homoeopathy has no meaning.”*  This maxim rigorously excludes empiricism of whatever name, and upon whatever data it be based, and in this respect, I consider the maxim just, and accept it explicitly. But is it, as has been supposed, the negation of diagnosis or prognosis ; in one word, does it imply the complete upsetting of pathology ? Such a conclusion seems to me to go beyond Hahnemann’s own ideas.
 – It is true, this great observer lays it down as a principle, (to which he did not always adhere as rigorously as he ought to have done,) that every case of disease has its individual shades, which requires a particular treatment ; in consequence of which he protests against every treatment which is simply based upon the general character of diseases. But does this authorize us to believe that he denied the existence of these general characteristics ? On the contrary, the more we study his writings, the more we become convinced that he firmly believed in the existence of types in pathology. And a proof that he believed in them is this, that he takes care to describe them whenever an opportunity offers ; the following quotations which have been extracted at random, are more than sufficient to justify this assertion.
 – “In a sudden affection of the stomach,” says, Hahnemann, “with frequent nauseous eructations, as of spoiled food, (sulphuretted hydrogen,) accompanied with depression of mind, cold at the feet, hands, etc., physicians, till the present time, were in the habit of attending only to the degenerated contents of the stomach. A powerful emetic must fetch it out entirely,” etc. Then follows a judicious criticism of the processes to which alloeopathic physicians have recourse under similar circumstances, after which Hahnemann adds : “These gastric affections of dynamic origin are commonly produced by a disturbed state of mind, (grief, fright, anger,) cold, exertion of the mind or body immediately after eating, and sometimes even after a temperate enjoyment of food.” What is this gastric affection, the symptoms of which are described by Hahnemann with so much precision, the habitual causes of which he indicates, and to which he seems to think every body is more or less liable ? He does not name it, I admit ; but what matters it, provided it is true that he regards this affection as a type ? Well, this is undeniable ; for notwithstanding the absolute principle of individualization which he had laid down a moment ago, he indicates specifically, perhaps too much so, the remedy indicated by the general malady which he had just described. “If, instead of those powerful and often injurious evacuating medicines, the patient should only smell once of a globule of sugar the size of a mustard seed, impregnated with the thirtieth dilution of pulsatilla, which infallibly restores the order and harmony of the whole system, and that of the stomach in particular, then he is cured in the space of two hours.” Here, then, we have pulsatilla mentioned as the real specific of a certain disease of the stomach, to which pathologists might undoubtedly have assigned a general appellation without incurring the censure of Hahnemann.
 – “It is the custom,” says Hahnemann, in another place, “at the present day, when gastric acid becomes superabundant, (which is frequently the case in chronic diseases,) to administer an emetic to relieve the stomach of its presence. But the following morning, or a few days, after, the stomach contains just the same quantity, if not more ; on the other hand, the pains cease of themselves, when their dynamic causes is attacked by an extremely small dose of dilute sulphuric acid, or with another antipsoric remedy, homoeopathic with the various symptoms.” * In this passage Hahnemann is a little less explicit than in the passage previously quoted. Nevertheless, he leaves us to infer, that in certain cases at least, acidity of the stomach may constitute a disease for which sulphuric acid is the bet remedy. Pathologists might therefore mention acidity of the stomach, as a typical form of disease, without disagreeing with the founder of homoeopathy.
 – But more than all this. Does not Hahnemann mention of goitre, the spasmodic gastralgia, the epidemic whooping-cough, croup, measles, scarlatina,* etc., as typical diseases, which can therefore be defined and described in general terms without reference to any particular case ? and lastly, syphilis, sycosis, and psora, these three pillars of the Hahnemannian pathology, are they not alone sufficient to show how little founded is the reproach which has been visited upon our illustrious teacher, that he denies the existence of definite diseases, and thus repudiates the whole past of medical experience ?
 – But if Hahnemann does not reject the essential nature of diseases, or at least of some of them, as a principle, he denies, and justly, the complete identity, in different persons, of such and such a morbid condition, which is generally designated by he same name, whence he concludes, that, at least, in the vast majority of cases, (and I should not hesitate to say in all cases,) every disease, if observed with sufficient attention, constitutes a true individuality, the treatment of which, in order to be strictly homoeopathic, requires to be conducted in a special manner.
 – It does not seem difficult, for that matter, to account for the undeniable tendency which is inherent in some maladies, (epidemics, for instance,) to adopt essential and generic characteristic signs. This tendency arises from the peculiar character of the forces which produce them. This now has to be explained.
 – Among the causes of disease, some act upon us mechanically and physically ; hence, they have no specific character, Such causes are, external injuries, dampness of the atmosphere, changes of temperatures, draughts of air, etc.
 – Other causes act dynamically and specifically, such as viruses and miasms.
 – Each of the causes belonging to the first class, may, according as the individual is predisposed, give rise to pathological affections which are very different among each other. A draught of air, for instance, may occasion a coryza, a pleurisy, a rheumatism, etc. It is not evident that, in such a case, the malady, which is subordinate to the age, sex, constitution, temperament, idiosyncrasy of the patient, to his hygienic habits, his degree to vitality, habitual or momentary irritability, or atony of this or that part of his organism, must necessarily present, in every individual, not only a peculiar degree of intensity but also a peculiar development and combination of the symptoms ? It seems to me, that these facts are confirmed by every day’s experience, notwithstanding all that has been said, and can be said, in favor of the essential character of diseases. The plan of classifying diseases, in accordance with the physical causes which produce them, would therefore seem purely chimerical, and, on the other hand, it would seem absurd, to regulate, in accordance with mere names, the treatment required by each malady.*
 – In miasmatic diseases, on the contrary, the inherent force of the cause governs the individual physiological conditions among which it acts, so positively, that, whatever these conditions may be, the effects produced, will always, consist of certain fune5ional or determinate organic disorders, much more changeable in their degree of intensity than in the mode of their development.
 – Hence, of all known diseases, the so-called miasmatic or epidemic diseases would undoubtedly be those whose generic character it would be the most easy to establish, and which could be most readily subjected to the exigencies of a methodical classification. But miasmatic and dynamic diseases being, as was shown above, strictly corresponding* to each other, it follows that drug diseases, which are comparable to natural diseases, (for this constitutes the foundation of the Homoeopathic doctrine,) are, at least, as much as the latter, comparable to each other, and susceptible, therefore, of being classified with reference to their reciprocal analogies and dissimilarities. The systemization of the Materia & Medica is entirely included within this last proposition. But before exhibiting the grounds upon which we propose to base our realization of this idea, let us resume what has been said so far.
 – 1. All diseases, whether natural or medicinal, are, according to the happy definition of Hahnemann, virtual and dynamic alternations of the health.
 – 2. The effects of drugs are (contrary to Hahnemann’s opinion,) neither more nor less absolute, more nor less constant than those of the other (dynamic) causes of the disease to which man is subject.
 – 3. That the law of similarity, similia similibus, which is the reason of the specific action of remedial agents, not to be understood, however, in the sense of some homoeopathic physicians, for their specificism is an erroneous deduction, is so much the more productive of happy results the more strictly it is applied to the totality of the two diseases which are intended to neutralize each other.

 – 4th, and lastly, that of all diseases those which are least subject to the principle of absolute individualization established by Hahnemann, are epidemic and medicinal disease, which nevertheless, does not prevent either from presenting marked differences in single individuals ; so that the same morbific cause (this point is of great importance for us, as will soon be seen,) even when of a dynamic character, produces by its action upon different individuals more or less dissimilar effects, whereas, different morbific causes, action equally in different mediums, seem on the contrary, capable of producing in certain cases, effects that are more or less similar.*
 – Without insisting any further on these propositions, which in a treatise of medical philosophy, would undoubtedly require very long commentaries, let us at once enter upon an examination of the question which constitutes the special object of this work, namely : the classification of drug diseases, or which is the same, of drugs.
 – And to begin, is it not evident that in order to compare long diseases between themselves and to classify them afterwards, the first requisite is that they should be known ?
 – Now, do we know them ? or how ought we to proceed to acquire this knowledge in case we should not yet possess it ?
 – An imposing question, for it not only implies criticism, but also, as we shall see presently, a thorough remodelling of the immense labors of Hahnemann ; for I make bold to affirm that, up to this moment, drug-diseases are, for the most part, only very little known to us.
 – Hahnemann has collected the pure effects of a hundred drugs, with a perseverance that is above all praise, and often with an acuteness of observation that was peculiar to him.
 – But as I have already stated on a previous page, a series of symptoms juxtaposed at random, that is to say, according to an arbitrary rule, and which, in most instances, inverts the natural order in which the symptoms originally developed themselves, does not by any means, exhibit the image of a disease.
 – This is so true, that if we would isolate the symptoms of a most perfectly defined and characteristic malady, typhus, for instance, as has indeed been done until now with all drug-diseases, we should have great difficulty in recognizing the original malady.
 – Every disease presents, independently of its mere symptoms, a special mode of development which imparts to it a characteristic distinction from all other diseases, and, in a great measure, gives its symptoms their true meaning. In other words, every disease, whether natural of medicinal, has its own course, its own phases of invasion, growth, condition, decrease and termination, and, in my opinion, it is only by an exact description of these different periods, that it becomes possible to give a true idea of the whole disease.
 – There does not exist anything like it in our systems of pathogenesis,* immediate or consecutive, principal or accessory, constant or exceptional symptoms, all, generally, are classed alike, and occupy the same rank, what was to be done, in order to avoid this unpleasant confusion ?

0 0 votes
Please comment and Rate the Article
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments