Page images
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

IV our last issue, we suggested to our readers that reports of their mis-

takes would make valuable reading for the CLINICAL REPORTER fam-
ily. Either our subscribers have made no mistakes or they are afraid to
report them, for we have not received a single communication along the
lines suggested. Perhaps, however, our friends are only waiting for some
one to begin. In the hope that such may be the fact, the editor, though
not one of the “grave and reverend seignors” to whom he referred in the
article above mentioned, overcomes his well-known modesty (?) and now
comes to the confessional.

Remedies that seemed well-indicated having failed for three days to
arrest what had been represented as a menorrhagia, an examination was
insisted upon.

This revealed remains of a recent abortion and swettage
of the uterus was soon followed by a cessation of the flow. The patient,
much debilitated by the excessive hemorrhage, was doing nicely under
China, but complained of obstinate constipation. Some rise of temperature
led to the fear of septic infection that might be aggravated by the accumulation of fæces. Under the circumstances, we concluded to yield to the request of the patient and her mother for something to move the bowels." A dose of sulphate of magnesia was prescribed and, strange as it may seem to those who know that we are not perl aps a bigger fool than most mendoctors at least—it never occurred to us that we had made an egregious blunder until on the next day when the patient's mother informed us that the patient had had two or three) copious, loose passages, but that she was so weak that she had twice fainted. Some of our readers perhaps think that we are going to say that we made a blunder in giving any sort of an evacuant. Frankly, we do not think so; but (and here is the point of this first confession) we could hardly have selected a worse one. It all flashed upon us as soon as we heard of the syncopal condition superinduced, but if it had flashed a day sooner our patient would not have been placed in jeopardy. Here was a woman, made anæmic by excessive loss of blood. If a laxative were indicated, one should have been selected that would have acted by increasing peristalsis and not by further draining the already depleted body of its fluids, as does sulphate of magnesium. Will our readers wonder that we did not feel very comfortable when, a few days later, in settling her bill, the mother complimented us upon the skill with which we had "pulled the patient through?”

We had a case of pneumonia under treatment. When the patient was first seen, one of his hands was tied in a clean rag. Upon inquiry, we were told it was nothing but a little boil” that did not worry the patient or hurt him much. We went on treating the pneumonia. Patient was doing very nicely indeed under Bryonia. On the morning of the fourth day we found the patient suddenly worse, prune-juice expectoration, etc. A look at what was visible of the hand revealed an unexpected state of things. Bandages were removed and a general phlegmonous condition of the hand and arm was discovered. Incisions were made here and there to relieve the pressure, remedies were changed to meet changed indications, but all in vain—within thirty-six hours the patient had passed away, the victim of septicæmia from the "boil," which, in a condition of health, might have been quite benign in its course but which became virulent and deadly in the pneumonic state. Had we, as we should have done, insisted upon an examination of the lesion of the hand in the first place and treated it also; in other words, had we taken charge of the patient rather than accepted the charge of his pneumonia it is possible, nay, probable, that the development of cellulitis could have been prevented and that the fatal termination of the case might have been averted.

Who will be the next to step up to the confessional?


HE New York Medical Times is of the opinion that if the "dual action

of drugs" were taught in all medical colleges there would be an immediate medical millennium in which the old school lion and the new school lamb would lie down together—the lamb inside of the lion, since there would then come an end to 'sectarian colleges'. The "dual action of drugs" however, is only a false way of putting a great truth. Strictly speaking, there is no dual action of drugs. As well say that because if the boy's ball is thrown against a window pane with a certain amount of force it is impelled back toward the boy, while if it be thrown with greater force it goes through the pane in the original direction of impulsion, therefore, there is a dual law of motion. The sick-making power of the drug is always in one direction. Curative results are of vital origin, the product of the reaction of the organism. It is this re-action and nothing else that has been called the secondary action of the drug by those who, through a change of nomenclature, hope to make acceptable to old-school minds the homcopathic relations of drugs to diseases. The "dual action of drugs" is taught in every homeopathic college in the world, for it is involved in the very terms of the homeopathic formula. So far as we know, it is not taught (with any degree of directness at least) in any of the old-school colleges. The latter then are, in reality, the "sectarian” colleges, those who teach but a section of the truth—if we may be permitted, for brevity's sake to give our contemporary's expression a twist of our own. We hope that the Medical Times will keep up the fight and lead the old-school colleges to adopt homeopathy as part of their curriculum even under the mis

ng, unphilosophical and unscientific name "the dual action of drugs”, but how will the teachers teach what they know practically nothing about? What do they know of the "primary action” of drugs beyond the gross effects of material doses! Absolutely nothing! When they know that a large dose of Ipecac will cause nausea and vomiting, while a minute dose will (sometimes) stop existing nausea, do they know Ipecac? When the student is taught that a minute dose of Ergot will (sometimes) re-establish a suppressed flow from the uterus while a large one will so contract the vessels as to stop a hemorrhage, has he obtained that knowledge of the drug that will enable him to make the best use of it possible at the bed

When he has learned that Podophyllum is a cathartic in material doses, and yet in minute ones a cure for diarrhea (sometimes), has he any data from which he can determine when it will cure diarrhoea? The list might be extended indefinitely, the so-called secondary action of drugs is something else, or at least something inore than the reverse of the physiological results of gross doses. Will the Medical Times kindly tell us

where we can find an old-school professor of materia medica who teaches or can teach these finer re-actions of the organism to the potentized remedy. If, as we believe, it cannot name one, then it has unintentionally made an excellent argument in favor of the continuance of what it is pleased to call sectarian colleges where, and where only, “the dual action of drugs” is taught in such a way that their students may make practical use of the knowledge imparted.



UCH is the editorial assertion of one of our homeopathic exchanges.

Now, this is merely a play upon words (since a remedy may be said not to be a remedy unless it remedies) or it is "flap-doodle." "If the indicated remedy fails once," continues our confrere, “where is the truth of Similia?' Well, let us see. When Adolph Lippe was upon his deathbed, (They say he was a pretty fair prescriber and was attended by other passable materia-medicists!) in the full possession of his faculties, he noted the effect of the remedies which both he and his medical attendants considered indicated, yet he quietly remarked to the latter that the end must be near for the remedies only palliated.” We wonder whether Lippe lost his faith in the law of cure by similars because the remedies which both he and the eminent prescribers who stood by him to the last were unable to cure him with the “indicated remedy?” They say Hahnemann knew something about the indicated homeopathic remedy and yet he is dead; so are many of the old guard of homøopathy, dead not from violence but from disease.

"We do not believe in teaching the failure of the law of cure,” continues our contemporary. There's the rub. The editor of the journal in question assumes that failure of the indicated remedy implies failure of a law of nature, and rather than admit that, he denies facts that are patent to the most superficial observer, if unbiased. His assumption does not tally with the observed facts—then so much the worse for the facts." We say it in all kindness and yet in all earnestness, such wild talk furnishes a show of good cause to members of other schools for refusing to investigate the merits of homeopathy. The reckless denial of evident facts by the witness in the case naturally leads to a withholding of evidence from his allegations of other facts in the same case.

The law of similars is a law of nature, but does it follow that it is the only law of nature that has aught to do with the health of the human race? "It is an universal law.” Even so, does universality imply irresistibility? Is there not at least one other law of nature concerning which all schools of medicine are agreed? That men must die; in other words that, sooner or later there comes to every one some ailment (presumably not without symptoms) that defies the skill of all medicists, the power of all remedies!

The true meaning of the Hahnemannian formula is that the curative force of drugs resides in their property of producing symptoms similar to those of the disease to which they are applicable. Hahnemann never taught any such nonsense as that the force evoked by the similar remedy is always adequate to the task of curing the similar malady. Even if he had, it would be none the less nonsense.

There is a vast amount of unphilosophical talk being indulged in daily concerning the laws of nature by gentlemen who do not distinguish between the very diverse senses in which that term is used and who do not see that what is true of “laws of nature” in one sense of the term is quite untrue of "laws of nature" in another sense. We shall make this matter the subject of an editorial in our next issue which, we hope, may serve to enlighten some who are better physicians than metaphysicians concerning the use of this term which has led to so much vague and useless logomachy.




THE diseases either directly caused, or immediately influenced in

their course, by meteorological surroundings are too numerous to be considered in an essay of such brief length as is permitted on this occasion. It will be the chief object of this paper therefore to call attention only to those diseases prevalent at this season of the year; that are directly and materially affected and influenced by the usual winter weather.

The effects of the cold weather on the general mortality rates are well known to the profession through the writings of Dr. B. W. Richardson, who has shown by statistics of unquestionable authority, that the general death rate rises and falls conversely with the thermometer.

The effects of cold weather on the health of a community are both direct and indirect; the direct being in the shape of congestion and inflammations due to exposure, and the indirect in the shape of diseases caused by

Read before the Homoeopathic Medical Society Dec. 1893.

« PreviousContinue »