Dr. Bayes acknowledges that the case is admirably reported; the symptoms both objective and subjective carefully recorded, and that it ought therefore to prove one of more than ordinary interest and instruction; yet he confesses to arise from its perusal with a feeling of very considerable disappointment — and why disappointment? Because he thinks that if we are only to be guided by some little characteristic symptom in the treatment of a severe case of disease, where would be the need to study physiology and pathology?
By inference, then, Dr. Bayes holds that the physiological and pathological conditions indicate the curative remedy in the treatment of a severe case of disease, and that we must not be guided by some little characteristic symptom. So the modern physiological school teaches, and so it tries to cure; but not so does Homoeopathy. The case in question proves, and should prove satisfactorily to every one, that Dr. Bayes assumes a false position as a Homoeopathist, as the case itself furthermore answers all of the doctor's questions fully. Dr. Bayes considers it a severe case of disease. Dr. Capper describes the case well, he has prescribed for it as for a case of pneumonia, and has not been guided in the selection of the medicine by any little characteristic symptom; he has administered Aconite2 and Phosphorus12, and then considered the patient, a young lady eleven years of age, very thin, of pale complexion, strumous diathesis and of a highly nervous temperament, to be in great danger. Mr. Wilson is then called to see the patient in consultation, and, after full examination, he notes the following remedies for study: Aconite, Arnica, Bryonia, Con., Cupr., Dulc., Euphrasia, Lycop., Mag. mur., Natrum mur., Silicea.
What remedy could be selected by a true Homoeopathist for this pulmonary congestion, complicated with an inflammatory condition of the liver and peritoneum? Did these pathological conditions or any one of the objective symptoms indicate the curative remedy? Will Dr. Bayes enlighten us on the subject?
The fan-like motion of the alae nasi, the 311th symptom of Lycopodium in Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, which was very marked in this patient, was not to be found under any one of the other medicines noted down for study because of their general similarity to the case. Past experience induced Mr. Wilson to administer Lyc. The patient had grown much worse and was in great danger, notwithstanding Aconite, Bryonia and Phosphorus had been repeatedly administered in low dilutions. It was, as Mr. Wilson said, symptom 311 and no pathological indication which led him to select Lycopodium as. the only appropriate remedy. Five globules of Lycopodium200 were dissolved in an ordinary tumbler full of water, and one tea-spoonful ordered to be repeated every two hours, until the fan-like motion of the nostrils ceased, then to be repeated at longer intervals. Dr. Bayes is very much at a loss to know why Lycopodium was so frequently repeated in this attack of pneumonia, as the patient is reported to have been cured three months previously of an attack of dysentery by one dose of Mercury cor.200 Lycopodium very likely would have been administered in one dose and would not only have cured the case, but the patient would not have grown worse and have been in great danger had Dr. Capper followed Mr. Wilson's early advice of the 13th of April, and had he not been guided by the pathological condition (pulmonary attack and congestion) and discarded the remedy which Was similar according to the symptoms from first to last. This however caused the patient to be in great danger. He followed the teachings of the physiological school instead of those of Homoeopathy.
Dr. Bayes wishes to be enlightened as to when one dose should be given and allowed to act without interference, or when to continue it for many days. The answer to this question lies in the case itself. Dr. Bayes will certainly require no further explanations if he will only be good enough to select for each individual case of sickness the truly curative remedy according to Hahnemann's teachings, then administering that remedy in one solitary dose of a high potency and allow it to act without reference. The results will be the best, nay the only explanation necessary. That was Hahnemann's method and is not, as Dr. Bayes incorrectly states, an improvement on it. This being so, it is proper that objections are raised against a practice which claims to have made still further improvements on Hahnemann's method, by giving low dilutions and even massive doses.
Has Dr. Bayes ever read the Preface of the fifth volume of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases? and if not, will he now do it and see what Hahnemann means by and how he defines “dilutions” and “dynamization.?” and if he then claims the right to improve on Hahnemann by going back to dilutions or even massive doses, he can certainly go on improving in the same direction, and he will find himself with Galen. The case in question is exceedingly interesting and instructive, interesting to the physician who followed out Hahnemann's teachings and cured his patient, to the patient who was in great danger and who recovered, and instructive to the student of Homoeopathy who looks for characteristic indications and who follows in the path of our immortal master. Lycopodium is known to cure diseases very often when they begin on the right side of the body and thence go to the left side — in tonsilitis this has been very frequently confirmed — in this case again the disease began on the right side and extended to the left lung. This case confirmed, by this fact, another characteristic symptom of Lyc. But Dr. Bayes does not think it is very clearly proved that the recovery was in consequence of the action of Lyc.200, and he further says that severe cases of pneumonia have recovered in less time under Aconite and Phosphorus in low dilutions. Aconite, Bry. and Phosphorus had been administered in low dilutions, the disease progressed and the patient was in great danger, but began to improve after the administration of Lyc.200 and finally recovered. What other proofs does Dr. Bayes want?*[A horse was ill from a sun-stroke. One dose of Belladonna 2000 cured the horse in one day. The coachman who knew how sick the horse had been, who had seen the pellets administered, remarked the next day, shaking his head, “the horse is well to be sure, but he should have been bled.”]
Dr. Bayes further says, “we want as physicians to be able to lay down more definite rules for the treatment of diseases; more decided data as to the proper doses and the frequency with which they should be given” He speaks as one who knows nothing at all of Hahnemann's teachings, who has laid down the rules; and if the Doctor will follow them, he will learn to appreciate them. To follow these rules is not a hazardous experiment.
Hahnemann's rules guided Mr. Wilson in the treatment of the case and therefore the result — the recovery. The notions of the physiological school guided Dr. Capper, and the patient became alarmingly ill — where was the hazardous experiment?
As long as Dr. Bayes prefers in practice to select “the characteristic indications” in accordance with physiological and pathological knowledge wherever it is practicable, he can never claim to be a Homoeopathist. In this case, for instance, the subjective and objective symptoms had been carefully ascertained, and had revealed the extent and serious nature of the active pulmonary congestion, complicated with an inflammatory condition of the liver and peritoneum; where then are the characteristic indications? will Dr. Bayes state them, and enlighten the Homoeopathists? Dr. Bayes no doubt feels inclined to say that Aconite and Phosphorus should have been given in larger dose. Against any such subterfuge I here protest beforehand — facts stand out against any such assertion too glaringly to be overlooked. I appeal to the report of Dr. Eidherr and the result of the different potencies in the treatment of pneumonia. Dr. Bayes will learn from that report, and the very accurate tables accompanying it, that the duration of the disease was considerably shortened under the administration of the smaller doses, and shortened in the proportion in which the potencies were “diminished” (See Zeitschrift der Vereins des Homoeopathischen Aerzte Oesterreichs Wien, 1862.)
Does Hahnemann teach that we must look to Pathology and Physiology for characteristic indications? and where pray does Dr. Bayes find him to teach so? The followers of Hahnemann do not contend that the study of Physiology and Pathology should be abandoned — by no means — these very studies will facilitate the finding of the characteristic symptoms in every individual case. When we know all the symptoms of a case, and find some more characteristic in an individual case than in others which are more general, we then apply the homoeopathic law to the case and so find for it the only curative remedy. We shall then not try a hazardous experiment but be successful in what we undertake to do — to cure the sick.
Taking these fundamental principles for granted, will Dr. Bayes inform the Homoeopathists what characteristic indications, in accordance with physiological and pathological knowledge, will indicate the curative remedy in intermittent fever or in hooping cough? or, in any disease?
|Source:||The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 04 No. 05, 1863, page 218-222|
|Description:||a Question on Characteristic Indications Addressed to Dr. Bayes.|
|Editing:||errors only; interlinks; formatting|