The Question of Dose in Homeopathy
- American Institute of Homoeopathy, Srish Chandra Basu, L. H. M. S
The question that is uppermost in the mind of a homoeopathic physician is that of dose. While some advocate the highly potentized remedy as the one to be used with success in the treatment of disease, others deny the efficacy of the same altogether, e. g., Lippe is of opinion that "every case of intermittent fever can, has, and must be cured with the potentized remedy under the law of the similars homoeopathically." But Hale, on the other hand, asserts that "boastful homoeopathic physicians often claim that they can cure any case of ague with the high potencies. But those who practiced many years in malarious districts know that such assertions are false." Both have their votaries, who are not small fries, but are well informed and regarded as authorities by the profession. It is, therefore, invidious to make any distinction among them.
In the reports of cases that are published in our journal we also observe the same difference in the method of practice. For instance, while some think it almost criminal to use Calcarea carb. in any potency below 200th, we find such a veteran as Dr. Chahendra Lal Sircar advising the use of this remedy in the lower potency. In a case reported by Dr. Nripendahatt Sett, of Calcutta, in this journal some years ago, we find that he was using Calcarea 30, as it was indicated, but finding no improvement he called in Dr. Sircar for consultation, who advised him to give it in the 6th potency, and this had the desired effect.
When there is such material difference between the opinion and method of different authorities, it is well for us to go to the fountain head of our system - I mean to our great master and guide, Hahnemann - for the solution of this problem. The advocates of high potency seem to think that Hahnemann was exclusively in favor of the highly potentized remedies, but the careful readers of his Organon must have remembered that he insisted upon his followers not to be led by theoretical conjecture nor by sophistic reasonings. He desired them to mark with certainty the result of experiment and observation, as pure experiment and acute observation alone can solve the question. He has clearly laid down that "the dose of a homoeopathically selected remedy should not be reduced so far as to be inferior in strength to the natural disease and lose its power of extinguishing and curing it." From this it is quite evident that while the use of a potentized remedy is desirable, regard must be had to the fact that the selected potency should be equal to the natural disease in strength.
We should likewise take into consideration at what a dose a drug can exhibit its toxic effect. There are certain kinds of drugs which do not show their real character unless administered in heavy doses, while in others a very minute dose is capable of drawing out its toxic result. If we ignore these facts and go on thoughtlessly raising the potency higher and higher, we will be acting contrary to the rules of nature, for the similitude can be deduced only by lowering the dilution in proportionate degree. It is, therefore, desirable that we should note with accuracy the dose in which provings are made and make judicious use of the potency, having regard to the strength of the drug.
Another point I desire to urge upon the attention of our brother practitioners is, that we must take the susceptibility of our patients into consideration. There are certain patients who are susceptible to a very minute dose, while others upon whom even a very material dose cannot make any impression. While it is folly to prescribe a large dose in the case of the former, it is equally folly to insist upon the smallest possible dose for the latter.
For reasons stated above, we are often confronted with obstacles in the way of success, but a true physician he is who is guiding in each individual case by the toxaemia of the disease, the strength of the drug and the susceptibility of the patient. Hahnemann has rightly observed that a physician who knows in each case the obstacles in the way of recovery, and how to remove them, is the true master of the art of healing.
Srish Chandra Basu, L. H. M. S.
25 Parvate Ch. Ghose's Lane, Calcutta.
The 5th January, '10.
- Hom. Recorder.
In the reports of cases that are published in our journal we also observe the same difference in the method of practice. For instance, while some think it almost criminal to use Calcarea carb. in any potency below 200th, we find such a veteran as Dr. Chahendra Lal Sircar advising the use of this remedy in the lower potency. In a case reported by Dr. Nripendahatt Sett, of Calcutta, in this journal some years ago, we find that he was using Calcarea 30, as it was indicated, but finding no improvement he called in Dr. Sircar for consultation, who advised him to give it in the 6th potency, and this had the desired effect.
When there is such material difference between the opinion and method of different authorities, it is well for us to go to the fountain head of our system - I mean to our great master and guide, Hahnemann - for the solution of this problem. The advocates of high potency seem to think that Hahnemann was exclusively in favor of the highly potentized remedies, but the careful readers of his Organon must have remembered that he insisted upon his followers not to be led by theoretical conjecture nor by sophistic reasonings. He desired them to mark with certainty the result of experiment and observation, as pure experiment and acute observation alone can solve the question. He has clearly laid down that "the dose of a homoeopathically selected remedy should not be reduced so far as to be inferior in strength to the natural disease and lose its power of extinguishing and curing it." From this it is quite evident that while the use of a potentized remedy is desirable, regard must be had to the fact that the selected potency should be equal to the natural disease in strength.
We should likewise take into consideration at what a dose a drug can exhibit its toxic effect. There are certain kinds of drugs which do not show their real character unless administered in heavy doses, while in others a very minute dose is capable of drawing out its toxic result. If we ignore these facts and go on thoughtlessly raising the potency higher and higher, we will be acting contrary to the rules of nature, for the similitude can be deduced only by lowering the dilution in proportionate degree. It is, therefore, desirable that we should note with accuracy the dose in which provings are made and make judicious use of the potency, having regard to the strength of the drug.
Another point I desire to urge upon the attention of our brother practitioners is, that we must take the susceptibility of our patients into consideration. There are certain patients who are susceptible to a very minute dose, while others upon whom even a very material dose cannot make any impression. While it is folly to prescribe a large dose in the case of the former, it is equally folly to insist upon the smallest possible dose for the latter.
For reasons stated above, we are often confronted with obstacles in the way of success, but a true physician he is who is guiding in each individual case by the toxaemia of the disease, the strength of the drug and the susceptibility of the patient. Hahnemann has rightly observed that a physician who knows in each case the obstacles in the way of recovery, and how to remove them, is the true master of the art of healing.
Srish Chandra Basu, L. H. M. S.
25 Parvate Ch. Ghose's Lane, Calcutta.
The 5th January, '10.
- Hom. Recorder.
Comments
Post a Comment
PLEASE WRITE YOUR SYMPTOMS HERE TO GET SUGGESTION.