Na






10


ate remedy in a given case is selected, it, as it were, meets
at the point where diseased action commences, and the prominent symptoms are relieved, and the natural functions restored. Homcepathy gives in general but one or two remedies at a time, not in combination. The most difficult point
in the --Iomcepathic practice, is to select the most appropriate remedies in a given case. This is done somewhat as
fobllows: the disease is critically investigated, all the symptoms are critically examined, giving most importance to the
most prominent, or what are pathognomonic, and forming
as it were, a complete picture of the disease. Then from
the list of medicines, is selected one which is known to
produce in a healthy peason, symptoms similar to what
are found in the patient, so that, the nearer the image of the
effects of the medicine correspond to the symptoms, the more
Homcepathic is it to the case, and the more sure of a speedy
and permanent effect. This then is the rule for the application of medicine on the Homoeopathic principle, a rule held
by Hahnemann, the author of the system, to be a fixed principle in nature, as much as gravitation; certain it is, that it
is of very general application, and often -accidentally acted
upon in the regular practice, and the medicine operates like
a charm, as the phrase is; but it is certain that the observation of this law was first insisted upon by Hahnemann. But
physicians have often mistaken this principle of the Homoeopathic school; and hence they will say that a medicine causes
the same disease which it cures: that bark, which cures intermittent fever, must, if given freely, produce it: or, if Belladonna is Homoeopathic to Scarlatina, it will produce Scarlatina, &c.; far from the truth. When Hahnemann quaked
and shook from taking bark, he never supposed he had marsh
intermittent, but a train of symptoms similar to what are
manifested in some forms of that disease; in other cases,
arsenic produces symptoms more analogous, and hence in
such cases will cure more speedily than bark. I have seen a
patient under the influence of several grains of Belladonna,
taken by accident; there was a high degree of excitement
and general fever, attended with hot skin, surface red and
hot, throat red, hot, and dry; in many respects similar to certain conditions of scarlet fever; but no one would claim it to
be the identical disease. Now, Belladonna is very effectual
in that disease or any other, where similar symptoms are
manifested. So that, although Homoepathy is a system of
specifics in one sense, it is not so much specific to particular
diseases, as to particular conditions; for it is the fact, that in
most diseases, several remedies will be required; in the early
stage one may be most appropriate, in the second another,



15


IN RUSSIA.
Cured by Homoeopathy 86 cases in 109.
by Allopathy   60    "   199.
In a teritory in' Hungary, from the report of the health
commissioner, it appears that out of a population of 16,289,
there were treated Homoeopathically 154, cured 148, died 6.
But Homoeopathy has been successful in other diseases,
as hospital reports will show. Dr. Becker, of Hamburg,
says, " upon comparing the statistics of several Homoeopathic hospitals, it appears, from official statements, that the
mortality in them is not quite five in a hundred, whereas, I
observe from the statistics of Allopathic hospitals, that the
mortality there is eleven in a hundred."
In Russia a trial took place with Homoeopathic treatment
in the fall and winter of 1829, for five months; of 72 cases of
inflammation of the lungs, 70 were cured; 38 cases of inflammatory fever, 35 were discharged cured, 2 convalescent, and
one remained; 23 cases of bronchitis, 21 were discharged
cured, one removed, and one curable remained. This shows
not a very unfavorable result in acute inflammatory diseases.
But it may be said this is too far from home, and for ought
we know, Homoeopathy is dead there before this. We have,
it is true, few hospital reports in this country, from the fact
that the system has not been adopted to any considerable extent. In the Half Orphan Asylum, in the city of New York,
Which had been under the care of one of the first physicians
in the city, there prevailed an obstinate opthalmia and cutaneous disease, which was resisting the ordinary mode of
treatment, so much so, that first the eye cases were selected
and given to Dr. C. Wright, Homoeopathic, for treatment. In
1842, out of 162 children were 53 cases requiring treatment,
20 in the aggravated form; they were soon cured: and a
large number of cutaneous diseases were given to him, and
in these he was also successful, (see his report), so much so,
that the directors gave him a very flattering encomium in
their report; and finally, although they are not a majority
friendly to Homoeopathy, still Dr. Wright was put in charge
of the institution, which he still retains, merely on account
of his successful treatment.
The following Table from Dr. Wright's report classes the
diseases treated in the Asylum, Homoeopathically, from August llth, 1842, to December 12th, 1843, the date of the report. It will be observed out of 421 cases there were but
two deaths; both of these, says the report, were chronic cases.
The two most prevalent diseases, it is true, are not frequently fatal, but some of the acute febrile are. At least it
is rather favorable for no treatment!



17


unbalanced, or they have become visionary, or as a writer
says, "believe in such things as dreams are made of," we
should think they would fail in discriminating and judging
oftener than they do, that they would not cure at all. And
why is it that in families who have had no other practice for
years, get along at all? Now, it has sometimes been said,
that physicians adopt the Homoeopathic practice from interested motives; but interest certainly would lead the other
way, and it may be, (though I have so much charity for my
medical brethren as not to believe this to be a general rule,)
that this is the reason why they do not investigate. It certainly is true, that the great mass of the medical profession
do not investigate any too much. If diseases are cured more
speedily, it is more for the interest of the patient than the
physician;and the duty of the medical profession is to fight
continually against their pecuniary and selfish interest, by
the prevention and speedy cure of disease, rather than allow
it to make progress. It is sometimes said that Homoeopathy
may check a disease at its onset, which otherwise would become severe. Now I hold that the great secret of successful
practice in any system, is so directing our early efforts that
they shall be effectual in preventing disastrous consequences
or secondary effects. He is a more skillful physician who never
allows his patient to become very sick, than he who can cure
him when so; though the latter faculty is necessary, and will
of course' be possessed. We would not consider- a pilot as
successful who was continually upon shoals and rocks, although he should frequently extricate himself, without becoming completely wrecked, as we should one who has foresight enough to avoid these dangers.
It unquestionably is true, that the Homoeopathic success
depends, to some extent perhaps, upon preventing the patient
becoming very sick in one sense. This is effected first by the
medicine being applied directly, instead of indirectly, to the
point, instead of comparatively at random-in its producing
a direct or specific effect, instead'f one which is ind rect or
general. In directing that medicinal agent which will meet
the cause, or the primary link in the chain of morbid sympathies, instead of those which are lower in the series, our
whole system is a most delicate and complicated machine; a
vital one it is true, and for that very reason more closely
linked together, and the several parts more dependent on the
normal action of its fellow organs for the performance of their
functions. Now, so long as the balance is maintained between the vital forces, there is a regular performance of all
the functions of the body and mind, and consequently health.
As a delicately constructed machine, where the several
3



27


and principles, do away virtually with what we know to be
absolutely necessary, and if carried out would prove most
disastrous. This objection, if founded in reality, instead of
imagination, would be an insuperable one, and as it is,
requires an argument; and in order to carry out our views,
we shall be obliged to bring comparisons and anologies. We
shall then, maintaining the general doctrines of Homoeopathy
to be true in principle and applicable in practice, claim that
when properly understood and applied, it is exempt from the
charge. We are no radicals, either in medicine, in politics, or
in morals. We hold that it is utterly impossible in the nature
of things, for one new truth, or discovery in science, to
displace a fundamental law; the laws of nature, which are
fixed and unchangable, are not altered by new discoveries;
if our discoveries change our views of those laws, as did
those of Gallileo, it only proves that our previous notions
were incorrect, and ought to be changed; if it annihilates
our views of truth, it is certain that our views were not well
founded, although the truth might remain; we do not hold,
in a progressive science, our knowledge to be anything more
than probable truth; a substance in chemistry which we hold
as simple to day, may to-morrow be discovered to be compound;
and hence the philosopher should be ever ready to change
his opinions in this sense. So in medical science; we hold
a medicine has such an effect in the present state of our
knowledge, that at some future time it may be discovered
that it has other effects; these effects are not absolute and
immutable; so in regard to disease.
We therefore, in adopting new views, and giving up old
ones, act on the principle of the manufacturer, who invents
a new machine which is more perfect, and produces a certain
article, in a more simple and complete manner. Now he
does not lay aside the old machine because it was all wrong,
nor because it had not answered the purpose for which it
had been used; it had done so, less perfectly, it is true; now
he adopts the new one because it is an improvement; and it
is on this principle that improvements in the different departments of medicine and surgery are adopted. We give medicine on the Homceopathic principle, because it on the whole
is an improvement, not claiming but that the old system has
done good, or we could do no good with it now. We hold
that the physician is bound to use the best means in his
power; and further, that he is bound under an obligation superior to all human laws, to know all that can reasonably
be demanded; to fail of either we hold to be quackery. If I
am cast upon an island where the inhabitants are suffering
from a severe disease, one half of the cases proving fatal,



29


appropriate, and agreeable means of relief; and it is not too
much to expect still further progress. So that we hold that
many things supposed to be necessary in medicine, and indeed absolutely necessary in ordinary practice, become obsolete, as it were, by the more direct and enlightened system of
SHomceopathy.
There is an analogy in social and civil life, and in the
progress of society as regards morals; and the same remarks
are applicable. There are certain institutions necessary in
certain periods of the world, and applicable to certain states
of society, which, when society becomes improved, become
unnecessary. In one period, war for example, is absolutely
necessary, and government could not be maintained without
a standing army-both reason and experience prove this;
and if war is necessary, all its accompaniments are necessary, as armories and arms, armies and navies; now it would
be radicalism to denounce any of these, till mankind have
learned to settle differences, according to the principles of
reason and justice; and when so far as this is done, the implements of war are superseded, by a system of more enlightened justice and humanity. The same is true on other
subjects; moral improvement supersedes the necessity of
punishment-but we must have the improvement first.
There will be no necessity to legislate to abolish systems, if
we can bring means to bear, which will effectually prevent
the community from coming within their reach; they are then
abolished of course. We hold the same rule in medicine to
be philosophical and correct. So long as it is necessary to
use the surgeon's knife, it should be done scientifically; so
long as it is necessary to destroy human life by war, it should
be done scientifically; so long as it is necessary to take the
life of the murderer, it should be done scientifically; to
such an extent as we are\ obliged to use the shops of the
apothecary, the more scientific the better; but as they are all
rather a "' bad business at the best," the progress of science,
and of moral truth, will sooner or later affect them all in the
same way; they will become less essential. Now on this
principle, and on this only, does Homoeopathy, when rightly
construed, interfere with any of our established principles or
practice. Good medicine interferes with surgery, and medicine dealers, (but more especially would it affect the herd of
nostrum mongers and quacks of every kind,) just as good
morals affect the lawyers, and officers of justice-it deprives
them of a great amount of their business.
As there are changes in the social, civil, and moral condition of mankind from one time to another, the same is true
as respects their physical state. It is well known by all



33


tion and cure-but as a principle, which, when correctly
understood and rightly appreciated, will do something, yea,
much, toward farther elevating the physical evils to which
the human race are liable.


5