Differences

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

--- en:ahr:hering-c-introductory-lecture-158-10493 [2013/02/22 11:13]
legatum
+++ en:ahr:hering-c-introductory-lecture-158-10493 [2013/02/22 11:16]
legatum
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 {{anchor:s66}}At first sight, nothing seems to be easier for a Homoeopathician than the plain teaching of Hahnemann: take the symptoms, but <span grade2>all</span> the symptoms. {{anchor:s67}}Either the patient, or, if it is a child, the mother or the nurse tells one symptom after another; the rest we see before us or hear, by sounding. {{anchor:s68}}Nothing seems to be easier, and it may be so sometimes, but a physician should be ready for all cases, not only for the easy ones as they occasionally happen to come in his way. {{anchor:s69}}And you will soon find the examination of the sick is not only the first thing you must learn, but you will find it the most difficult. {{anchor:s70}}Hahnemann's advice you will find is an entirely new one; never before taught. {{anchor:s71}}It will necessarily occupy the most of our time during the lectures on practice; and you will not only find that, as an art, it requires great skill, but it also requires of you, as a necessity, that you store up in your minds knowledge upon knowledge, science upon science; you have of course, in most cases, to complete the report given by the patient or nurse, by questions. {{anchor:s72}}But you cannot ask a single question, you cannot know what differs from health without knowing all about the healthy functions. {{anchor:s73}}Physiology is, in fact, the light yon must constantly have at hand, to shed its rays on every symptom; you can do nothing without it. {{anchor:s74}}At the same time, we can never complete the symptoms, never look to them as influencing each other, never bring them into order without knowing all that has been collected and stored up for ages under the name of <span grade2>Pathology</span>. {{anchor:s75}}To understand something about the connection of symptoms, to know the importance of the one above the other, to inquire in such directions as will lead to the full knowledge of all the symptoms, to be able to give an advice with regard to the diet and manner of living, to be able to tell with some probability what we have a right to expect as the next or prognosis, in fact, everyone of our acts as physicians requires Pathology.
-{{anchor:s76}}Our opponents have said and still say," Hahnemann denies all science, particularly the science of Pathology.{{anchor:s77}}" They have said so everywhere, all over the world, now these fifty years. {{anchor:s78}}As often as it has been said, it was a slander. {{anchor:s79}}It is not an error, not a misunderstanding, -- no, it is a slander. {{anchor:s80}}No one that said so has ever tried to learn to examine the sick according to Hahnemann; they do not even know what is required to be able to do it nor what they must know before they can attempt it. {{anchor:s81}}Why is it that up to this day old-school physicians find it so difficult to learn to examine the sick according to Hahnemann? {{anchor:s82}}Why is it that most of them never learn it? {{anchor:s83}}It is so great a difficulty and for the majority insurmountable, that it has been the original cause of a split in the ranks of Homoeopathicians. {{anchor:s84}}Since thirty years a new sect of Half-Homoeopathicians has been started, some among them of even a lesser fraction than half, quarters, halves-of-quarters. {{anchor:s85}}This class of Homoeopathicians take as much Pathology as they can get hold of, fork it up, and put it down on the field of Homoeopathy; they push between themselves and their patients as many names of diseases as they have been able to commit to their memory; they take only a small number of the symptoms of a case, and give them a high ruling rank, and call them diagnostic symptoms, change them into a name and are ruled by such names, not by symptoms. {{anchor:s86}}It may be much easier for such doctors, it certainly is not for their patients. {{anchor:s87}}These halves or quarters call their doctrine an improvement; they call it the perfection of our healing art, whilst they turn the carriage back and downhill into the mud again, out of which Hahnemann had with his herculean power lifted it, and, after ages, was the first to turn the wheels of our art forward. {{anchor:s88}}They call this an improvement, because it makes the examination of the sick and all the rest of our art so much easier for them. {{anchor:s89}}They are exactly like the slaveholders in our times, the slaveholders who preach to the world this strange doctrine, that the most perfect state of society, in fact the only "respectable" one is to have a handful of men called the aristocracy, to form the "republic," and to rule it; the rest of the inhabitants are either what is called "white trash" or black slaves. {{anchor:s90}}The former do not care to learn to read and write, and the latter are forbidden to learn it. {{anchor:s91}}Such a miserable imitation of the slavonic Asiatic nations they call an improvement! {{anchor:s92}}Call it the most perfect state of human society! {{anchor:s93}}With the same contradiction to common sense, such "would-be" Homoeopathicians call their half or quarter Homoeopathy the progressed, the improved, the most perfect system of medicine. {{anchor:s94}}They introduce a similar kind of aristocracy among the symptoms, where a few are to overrule the rest, and the same aristocracy they introduce into their revised and improved Materia Medica; for instance, fever and hot skin and quickened pulse - Aconite is to be given of course; difficulty in swallowing and redness of the skin, and of course Belladonna is the remedy; if both are to be found together or blended, of course both remedies are to be given in alternation, and as they pretend to be homoeopathic, they do not mix them in the same tumbler, but prefer to mix them in the same stomach.
+{{anchor:s76}}Our opponents have said and still say," Hahnemann denies all science, particularly the science of Pathology.{{anchor:s77}}" They have said so everywhere, all over the world, now these fifty years. {{anchor:s78}}As often as it has been said, it was a slander. {{anchor:s79}}It is not an error, not a misunderstanding, -- no, it is a slander. {{anchor:s80}}No one that said so has ever tried to learn to examine the sick according to Hahnemann; they do not even know what is required to be able to do it nor what they must know before they can attempt it. {{anchor:s81}}Why is it that up to this day old-school physicians find it so difficult to learn to examine the sick according to Hahnemann? {{anchor:s82}}Why is it that most of them never learn it? {{anchor:s83}}It is so great a difficulty and for the majority insurmountable, that it has been the original cause of a split in the ranks of Homoeopathicians. {{anchor:s84}}Since thirty years a new sect of Half-Homoeopathicians has been started, some among them of even a lesser fraction than half, quarters, halves-of-quarters. {{anchor:s85}}This class of Homoeopathicians take as much Pathology as they can get hold of, fork it up, and put it down on the field of Homoeopathy; they push between themselves and their patients as many names of diseases as they have been able to commit to their memory; they take only a small number of the symptoms of a case, and give them a high ruling rank, and call them diagnostic symptoms, change them into a name and are ruled by such names, not by symptoms. {{anchor:s86}}It may be much easier for such doctors, it certainly is not for their patients. {{anchor:s87}}These halves or quarters call their doctrine an improvement; they call it the perfection of our healing art, whilst they turn the carriage back and downhill into the mud again, out of which Hahnemann had with his herculean power lifted it, and, after ages, was the first to turn the wheels of our art forward. {{anchor:s88}}They call this an improvement, because it makes the examination of the sick and all the rest of our art so much easier for them. {{anchor:s89}}They are exactly like the slaveholders in our times, the slaveholders who preach to the world this strange doctrine, that the most perfect state of society, in fact the only "respectable" one is to have a handful of men called the aristocracy, to form the "republic," and to rule it; the rest of the inhabitants are either what is called "white trash" or black slaves. {{anchor:s90}}The former do not care to learn to read and write, and the latter are forbidden to learn it. {{anchor:s91}}Such a miserable imitation of the slavonic Asiatic nations they call an improvement! {{anchor:s92}}Call it the most perfect state of human society! {{anchor:s93}}With the same contradiction to common sense, such "would-be" Homoeopathicians call their half or quarter Homoeopathy the progressed, the improved, the most perfect system of medicine. {{anchor:s94}}They introduce a similar kind of aristocracy among the symptoms, where a few are to overrule the rest, and the same aristocracy they introduce into their revised and improved Materia Medica; for instance, fever and hot skin and quickened pulse -- Aconite is to be given of course; difficulty in swallowing and redness of the skin, and of course Belladonna is the remedy; if both are to be found together or blended, of course both remedies are to be given in alternation, and as they pretend to be homoeopathic, they do not mix them in the same tumbler, but prefer to mix them in the same stomach.
 {{anchor:s95}}Hahnemann's doctrine is to examine each case as if it were the only one, regard each sick person as the true sole object, and each case as an individual one. {{anchor:s96}}The healing art has according to Hahnemann the sick as its sole object, not the sickness.

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools