Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:ahr:dunham-c-retrospect-158-10429 [2014/06/13 10:08]
legatum
+++ en:ahr:dunham-c-retrospect-158-10429 [2014/06/13 10:19] (current)
legatum
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 {{anchor:s41}}The direction which this reaction takes, in so far as the indication is concerned, is well expressed in the following words by Dr. Drysdale:
-{{anchor:s42}}"No one has rightly understood the <span grade2>Examination of the Sourc</span>es, etc., nor the <span grade2>Spirit of the Homoeopathic Doctrine</span>, [Hahnemann's Lesser Writings, English edition, pp. 696 and 748.] who can imagine that the time has come, or can ever come, when clinical experience can supercede the pure symptoms as the final indication for specific Therapeutics. {{anchor:s43}}Nevertheless, the tendency of many is to go to this extreme; for, if we look through the homoeopathic practical literature, both standard and periodical, we find that nine-tenths of the indications are merely clinical, and no pains are taken to bring out the correspondence of the pure symptoms. {{anchor:s44}}Whither is this tending? {{anchor:s45}}Let us see. {{anchor:s46}}Allopathy now a days is a very different thing from what it was; mainly, I think, from the indirect action of Homoeopathy upon it and also from the borrowing, directly from us, many specifics which are used often in a simple form; also the use of specifics is partly acknowledged as a desideratum, and partly adopted practically under the names of tonics and alternatives; but the indications are always purely clinical and empirical. {{anchor:s47}}Now, in as, far as we rely on clinical indication alone, wherein do we differ from the ordinary school? {{anchor:s48}}In no way, except that, being superior in numbers and having the command of more men of talent in hospitals, they will beat us with what were originally our own weapons. {{anchor:s49}}Our only resource, then, is to go back to the more diligent cultivation of our special field, viz.:-the Materia Medica. {{anchor:s50}}There we have scope enough to recover lost ground and get again far ahead; for, granting all that Pathology and clinical experience can teach us-and I would of course avail myself of it to the very fullest extent-how far does that bring us in determining the one right medicine required in a system of specifics? {{anchor:s51}}A very little way indeed. {{anchor:s52}}Very often it offers us a free choice of twenty to fifty medicines, all equally eligible-a kind of liberty and equality for which we may spare our thanks, as most likely only one or two of them can be specific. {{anchor:s53}}Let any practitioner seriously think over the cases that present themselves in one day's average practice, and tell us how many are well pronounced examples of pure inflammation of the large organs or other well-defined diseases whose course is definite and symptoms sufficiently fixed to enable us to fix the specific <span grade2>ab usu in morbis</span>. {{anchor:s54}}A very small number it will be; and applying this to the practice of medicine at large, we come back to Hahnemann's proposition, that <span grade2>no two cases are exactly alike</span>, a fact that strikes at the root of all attempts, to perfect a system of specifics by experience in disease."
+{{anchor:s42}}"No one has rightly understood the <span grade2>Examination of the Sources</span>, etc., nor the <span grade2>Spirit of the Homoeopathic Doctrine</span>, [Hahnemann's Lesser Writings, English edition, pp. 696 and 748.] who can imagine that the time has come, or can ever come, when clinical experience can supercede the pure symptoms as the final indication for specific Therapeutics. {{anchor:s43}}Nevertheless, the tendency of many is to go to this extreme; for, if we look through the homoeopathic practical literature, both standard and periodical, we find that nine-tenths of the indications are merely clinical, and no pains are taken to bring out the correspondence of the pure symptoms. {{anchor:s44}}Whither is this tending? {{anchor:s45}}Let us see. {{anchor:s46}}Allopathy now a days is a very different thing from what it was; mainly, I think, from the indirect action of Homoeopathy upon it and also from the borrowing, directly from us, many specifics which are used often in a simple form; also the use of specifics is partly acknowledged as a desideratum, and partly adopted practically under the names of tonics and alternatives; but the indications are always purely clinical and empirical. {{anchor:s47}}Now, in as, far as we rely on clinical indication alone, wherein do we differ from the ordinary school? {{anchor:s48}}In no way, except that, being superior in numbers and having the command of more men of talent in hospitals, they will beat us with what were originally our own weapons. {{anchor:s49}}Our only resource, then, is to go back to the more diligent cultivation of our special field, viz.:-the Materia Medica. {{anchor:s50}}There we have scope enough to recover lost ground and get again far ahead; for, granting all that Pathology and clinical experience can teach us -- and I would of course avail myself of it to the very fullest extent -- how far does that bring us in determining the one right medicine required in a system of specifics? {{anchor:s51}}A very little way indeed. {{anchor:s52}}Very often it offers us a free choice of twenty to fifty medicines, all equally eligible -- a kind of liberty and equality for which we may spare our thanks, as most likely only one or two of them can be specific. {{anchor:s53}}Let any practitioner seriously think over the cases that present themselves in one day's average practice, and tell us how many are well pronounced examples of pure inflammation of the large organs or other well-defined diseases whose course is definite and symptoms sufficiently fixed to enable us to fix the specific <span grade2>ab usu in morbis</span>. {{anchor:s54}}A very small number it will be; and applying this to the practice of medicine at large, we come back to Hahnemann's proposition, that <span grade2>no two cases are exactly alike</span>, a fact that strikes at the root of all attempts, to perfect a system of specifics by experience in disease."
 {{anchor:s55}}The same point has been discussed with great ability and in a still more practical manner by writers in the <span grade2>Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung</span>, and especially by its able Editor, Dr. Veit Meyer, whose published cases of diseases treated purely according to the totality of the symptoms, have given a peculiar interest to recent volumes of that periodical. {{anchor:s56}}D.
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 {{anchor:s71}}Experiments with small doses, then, have led and will always lead honest-minded and capable men, to return to the strict practice of Hahnemann and his pupils. {{anchor:s72}}The reaction in the matter of the dose may be said then to have led, in some measure, the reaction in other matters.
-{{anchor:s73}}In 1850 the long-continued success of von Boenninghausen had already created a profound impression among Homoeopathicians. Dr. Meyer, of Leipsic; was an earnest student, at that time, of the whole subject we are discussing. {{anchor:s74}}Dr. Wurmb, at the same period, was successfully treating acute disease in his hospital at Vienna, with the thirtieth decimal potency. {{anchor:s75}}He had determined to make his hospital the gathering place for facts which should aid in determining the, vexed question of the dose. {{anchor:s76}}He <span grade2>hoped</span> that subsequent trials might show the superiority or lower dilutions; his hope was not realized. {{anchor:s77}}The records of the hospital show a clear superiority of the high over the low potencies, in the treatment of acute affections. {{anchor:s78}}Dr. Wurmb's frank publication of this result, which overthrows his own speculations regarding the dose, has exerted a marked influence throughout our school.
+{{anchor:s73}}In 1850 the long-continued success of von Boenninghausen had already created a profound impression among Homoeopathicians. Dr. Meyer, of Leipsic; was an earnest student, at that time, of the whole subject we are discussing. {{anchor:s74}}Dr. Wurmb, at the same period, was successfully treating acute diseases in his hospital at Vienna, with the thirtieth decimal potency. {{anchor:s75}}He had determined to make his hospital the gathering place for facts which should aid in determining the, vexed question of the dose. {{anchor:s76}}He <span grade2>hoped</span> that subsequent trials might show the superiority or lower dilutions; his hope was not realized. {{anchor:s77}}The records of the hospital show a clear superiority of the high over the low potencies, in the treatment of acute affections. {{anchor:s78}}Dr. Wurmb's frank publication of this result, which overthrows his own speculations regarding the dose, has exerted a marked influence throughout our school.
 {{anchor:s79}}On every side, in every country, there are eager inquiries concerning the high potencies and the proper method of using them. {{anchor:s80}}Countless experiments are instituted, and in the main with favorable results.
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 {{anchor:s99}}2. "The discovery of Hahnemann, that the remedy acts in small, very small doses, in smaller doses than any one has hitherto imagined, and that in these very small doses it may act more powerfully than in large doses," -- a discovery, says Dr. Hoppe, which surpasses in brilliancy all of Hahnemann's other achievements.
-{{anchor:s100}}Prof. {{anchor:s101}}Hoppe proceeds to explain, on scientific physiological and pathological grounds, the necessity of the former doctrine of Hahnemann - the necessity of individualizing each case of disease, and of treating it as if the like had never before been met with. {{anchor:s102}}In so doing he demonstrates the impossibility of accurately prescribing upon knowledge of drugs derived <span grade2>ab usu in morbis</span>. {{anchor:s103}}This leads him to demonstrate the necessity and advantage of drug-provings upon the healthy.
+{{anchor:s100}}Prof. {{anchor:s101}}Hoppe proceeds to explain, on scientific physiological and pathological grounds, the necessity of the former doctrine of Hahnemann -- the necessity of individualizing each case of disease, and of treating it as if the like had never before been met with. {{anchor:s102}}In so doing he demonstrates the impossibility of accurately prescribing upon knowledge of drugs derived <span grade2>ab usu in morbis</span>. {{anchor:s103}}This leads him to demonstrate the necessity and advantage of drug-provings upon the healthy.
 {{anchor:s104}}He does not hesitate to go wherever truth leads him, and to admit every conclusion that evidently follows from facts which observation has compelled him to accept. {{anchor:s105}}Accordingly, in a very remarkable article upon "[[hoppe-j-characteristic-symptoms-158-10503|Characteristic Symptoms]]," a translation of which appeared in the last number of this Review, he demonstrates the value of trivial subjective symptoms, showing that they are, and by their nature, must be, of controlling importance in the indication of the remedy.

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools