Alternation of Homeopathic Remedies
- American Institute of Homoeopathy,
A paper on Alternation of Remedies was delivered recently at the B. H. S.
The writer suggested that alternation was not scientific, but it was certainly useful, and cited certain remedies which he had found efficacious in alternation.
There are certain combinations of medicines that would be useful too, and no one denies that allopathic medication is useful and can cure.
It appears to me that this method of working is hardly on the lines of similia, and the author of the paper admits this. Must we take from his admission that he believes alternation of remedies to be an inferior method of practice? Hahnemann has provided Homoeopaths with a science of healing, yet we have suggested by the author of the B. H. S. paper a method which is not scientific. If it is not scientific it follows that it is not Homoeopathy.
If our method of practice is founded on the principle(?) of utility, then we are not Homoeopathists.
I am pretty certain that it is this sort of thing that helps to make Homoeopathy odious. Our opponents say, and I have heard them say it, that Homoeopathy is very little different from Allopathy, that Homoeopathists mix medicines just as they do, they give castor oil just as they do, they give morphia just as they do, and so on.
If Homoeopathy ever does any good as Homoeopathy I feel certain it will have to be on the lines of the purists.
If pure Homoeopathy is not practicable in dispensary practice we must set about an enquiry to see if it is the fault of pure Homoeopathy or the fault of those who profess it. We should have a commission appointed to get at the root of the trouble. I think this would be an excellent field of usefulness for the B. H. S. They have men who represent the purists, and men who represent the impurists, let them be called to give evidence on this most important crux amongst those who practise homoeopathy. - "Niccodemus" in Hom. World.
The writer suggested that alternation was not scientific, but it was certainly useful, and cited certain remedies which he had found efficacious in alternation.
There are certain combinations of medicines that would be useful too, and no one denies that allopathic medication is useful and can cure.
It appears to me that this method of working is hardly on the lines of similia, and the author of the paper admits this. Must we take from his admission that he believes alternation of remedies to be an inferior method of practice? Hahnemann has provided Homoeopaths with a science of healing, yet we have suggested by the author of the B. H. S. paper a method which is not scientific. If it is not scientific it follows that it is not Homoeopathy.
If our method of practice is founded on the principle(?) of utility, then we are not Homoeopathists.
I am pretty certain that it is this sort of thing that helps to make Homoeopathy odious. Our opponents say, and I have heard them say it, that Homoeopathy is very little different from Allopathy, that Homoeopathists mix medicines just as they do, they give castor oil just as they do, they give morphia just as they do, and so on.
If Homoeopathy ever does any good as Homoeopathy I feel certain it will have to be on the lines of the purists.
If pure Homoeopathy is not practicable in dispensary practice we must set about an enquiry to see if it is the fault of pure Homoeopathy or the fault of those who profess it. We should have a commission appointed to get at the root of the trouble. I think this would be an excellent field of usefulness for the B. H. S. They have men who represent the purists, and men who represent the impurists, let them be called to give evidence on this most important crux amongst those who practise homoeopathy. - "Niccodemus" in Hom. World.
Comments
Post a Comment
PLEASE WRITE YOUR SYMPTOMS HERE TO GET SUGGESTION.