Page images
PDF
EPUB

(Edematous swelling about the malleoli. F.X.

Pain Under The Right Inner Malleolus at every step (in 44 hours). X., F.S.

1425. PRESsiVEj9am in the right ancle-joint when sitting. E.A., Le.

Boring pain in front of the right ancle. F.S.

Pain in the left ancle-joint, especially when walking. S.

5. Feet.

Cold feet. X. (In 21 hours) F.X., A.H., Gs., Hs., S., F.S.

Feet first cold then burning hot. Gs.

1430. Feet as if dead (in 2\ hours). F.X.

Feet as if paralysed (in 10 hours). F.X.

She cannot keep her shoes on for the swelling in her feet, though they were too large for her. F.X.

Tensive burning pain in the bones of the right foot on the joints of the toes. P.

Tingling in the feet as if after a long walk. Rr.

1435. Continued dryness of the feet, which usually perspire. F.S.

a. Heels.

Drawing in the right heel. Kch.
Stitches in the right heel. S.

Pricking like needles under the left heel (in 10 hours). F.X.

Violent pain in the heel, which prevents walking. T. 1440. Pain under the heel at every step. X.

b. Instep.

Throbbing pain in the left instep (in 9 hours). R.A. Drawing on the left instep. Le.

Pricking in the left instep on walking in the open air at 3 p.m. Ng.

c. Soles.

Cramp of the sole of the right foot, which near the toes was bent under; the cramp ceased on compression with the hand, but increased on attempting to put it to the ground (in 12 hours). R.A.

1445. Pain as if from a blow under the left metatarsus. Hs.

Burning in the soles of the feet. Kch.

Itching In The Sole Of The Right Foot. S.

d. Toes.

Toes as if dead and insensible (in 12 hours). R.A.

Cold feeling in the toes (in | hour). X.

1450. Tensive burning pain in the toes of the right foot. P.

Shooting in the right great toe. S.

Shooting Drawing Pain on the under side Of The Left Great Toe (in lj hour). X., S.

Pain as if from a blow in the fourth and fifth left toes, evening in bed. Hs.

Pain In The Fourth And Fifth Right Toes. P., F.S.

1455. Itching and creeping in the toes. S.

Itching at the root of the left toes, passing off when scratched (in If hours). Ng.

ON THE NEED FOR A REVISION OF OUR NOMENCLATURE.

By Francis B. Hutchinson, L.R.C.P. Ed. (Exam.), M.R.C.S.

On entering upon the study of any new science the first business of the learner is to master its technology. In all modern sciences the aim of great teachers has been to maintain a nomenclature as simple as possible, and one in harmony with collateral branches of knowledge.

Thus the physician, receiving his drugs from the hands of the chemist and botanist, naturally uses the terms sanctioned by them, satisfied that they are as self-explanatory as possible, sufficiently definite, and, moreover, appointed by the proper authorities. Let a member of the medical profession then take up the study of Homoeopathy, that is, proceed to ascertain the extent to which the law of similars is available in the treatment of disease, and base his practice upon that law. He will naturally expect to find himself already furnished with the preliminary scientific knowledge, and be free to apply it to the subject before him.

But here a great and, as it seems to me, most unnecessary difficulty presents itself. He meets his old friends the medicines, indeed, again, but can hardly recognise them in their strange, uncouth, and obsolete garb. No more designated by terms sanctioned by modern science, well understood and defined, but by a nomenclature derived from Germany, unscientific, inaccurate, and very ugly. No more has he to do with Carbonate of Lime, Iodide of Potassium, and Sulphate of Quinine, or, if the Latin form be indispensable, Calcis Carbonas, Potassii Iodidum, and Quinte Sulphas, but with Calcarea Carbonica, Kali Hydriodicum, and Chininum Sulphuricum.

I believe it to be a fact that our nomenclature—one derived from the infancy of chemical science—has scared away many scientific men who were disposed to inquire into the claims of Homoeopathy, and I have therefore asked certain of my brethren who are regarded as authorities the reason why a nomenclature which sufficiently shows its own absurdity is retained.

I have learned in reply—

1. That Hahnemann having employed the terms now in use, respect to him and a desire to link his name eternally with his great discovery are sufficient reasons for their maintenance.

2. That chemical science is progressive, and its nomenclature constantly changing; that it is preferable to retain terms well understood, though confessedly arbitrary and incorrect, to running any risk of confusion through the vagaries of science.

3. That the present technology is a great common language to all Homoeopaths throughout the world.

These replies being to me utterly unsatisfactory, I beg leave to answer them as follows:

1. Hahnemann was a physician who unfolded to his brother physicians a higher truth than any to which they had before attained. He took the substances they were in the habit of administering, and consecrated them to higher and nobler uses; and he employed the common terms of his day, derived from the science of the time.

His followers, shut up from the great body of the profession by persecution, and fully occupied in their own field of labour, were hence, especially, perhaps, in England, excluded from the great world of science, a world revolving in close relation to that of medicine. They fell behind their age, and instead of, like their allopathic brethren, improving their technology with the progress of science, continued to use the now obsolete nomenclature of their great master.

That such should be the case cannot be wondered at; it was, perhaps, the right thing for the time being. But now Homceopathy has grown; it has made itself a place in the world, and lived down persecution; the cloud of confusion and error which surrounded its cradle, like that of every new truth, is rapidly being dispersed, and medicine based upon the law of similars is ready to issue forth from the secret place in which for seventy years it has been undergoing elaboration, and to take its place among the recognised sciences. Is it not, then, time to revise a nomenclature objectionable in itself, and exerting no small influence in maintaining our isolated and somewhat anomalous position? As well let chemistry retain the technology of Priestley, botany that of Aristotle and Dioscorides.

We may be sure that Hahnemann would have been the last man to wish his child dressed for ever in swaddling clothes, but rather that the stalwart youth should sit among his fellows in the manly garb. He would tell us that he founded a system of scientific medicine, not one of Hahnemannism.

2. Chemical science progresses, indeed, but not in an uncertain or arbitrary manner. The composition of the salts used in medicine is well understood, their names have been established a great number of years, and have not been changed by recent theories as to their constitution.

For instance, Sulphate of Potash was not long since supposed to consist of Potash directly combined with Sulphuric Acid, and was symbolically represented thus, KO, S03. Later investigations into the behaviour of salts submitted to electrolysis have made it probable that the constitution of the substance in question may be more correctly expressed thus, K, S04. Still, the term "Sulphate of Potash" admirably expresses the composition of the salt, and is quite unlikely to be superseded by any other.

But not only do I advocate the revision of our technology on the grounds of propriety, elegance, and harmony, but beg to submit to my brethren that such a step is, in fact, becoming an absolute necessity.

The Hahnemannian Materia Medica is limited, and our list of drugs is being continually enlarged through the investigations of modern observers. Let me give a list of a few salts already used by our allopathic brethren, and beginning to appear among ourselves; and let me ask how they are to be designated under our present system.

Iodide of Potassium.
Arsenite of Potassa.
Arseniate of Soda.

Hypophosphite of Soda.
Sulphide of Potassium.
Sulphite of Potassa.

Some of these call for special remark. Iodide of Potassium is known in the Homoeopathic body as Kali Hydriodicum, a term positively incorrect. Kali or Potassa contains oxygen, and the prefix " hydr" implies the presence of hydrogen in the compound. Now, the salt contains neither oxygen nor hydrogen, but consists simply of Potassium combined with Iodine, and is represented symbolically as KI.

Again, "Mercurius Iodatus," according to all analogies, should mean Iodate of Mercury, a compound of the Protoxide of Mercury with Iodic Acid. The substance really intended to be designated is simply Iodide of Mercury or Hydrargyri Iodidum.

3. The present nomenclature, it is said, is a common language for Homoeopaths throughout the world. Well! if we are for ever to be a set of mere symptom doctors, Hahnemannites, let it be so. But such is not my idea

« PreviousContinue »