Organon –
Discussion.
By Eugene
Beauharnais NASH, M.D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet
Dr Eugène
Beauharnais NASH
(1838-1917)
Section 258 : “He must, likewise, be
careful not to entertain a prejudice against those remedies from which
we may have experienced some check because he had made a bad selection,
and he should never lose sight of this great truth that of all known
remedies there is but one that merits a preference before all others,
viz., that whose symptoms bear the closest resemblance to the totality
of those which characterize the malady. No petty feeling should have any
influence in so serious a matter.”
DISCUSSION.
Dr. Nash :
The
remedy which corresponds most closely to the totality of symptoms of the
patient, is according to Hahnemann, always to be prescribed for cure,
palliative, or for euthanasia where the cure is impossible. He brings
this up because there are many of our school who believe that such
remedies as Phosphorous and Sulphur
should not be given in consumption. He must disagree with them ; he
must doubt their conclusions ; he must believe that Hahnemann’s
conclusions as given above were correct. He had also had some experience
with Phos., which would have led him to the same conclusions had not his
experience set him right.He had always in these
cases given lower potencies, that is somewhere in the thousands, and had
thought they had done harm, until he had a case of consumption, that was
incurable, and Phosphorus was
plainly indicated and no other thing. He gave Phos.
M. M. with such beautiful and lasting results, that he was
convinced that the reasons why we had results, where from giving too low
a potency. He has never had any trouble since he had observed this fact,
and would like to ask whether we had any other law for a palliation or
for a cure. At the International Hahnemannian Association there was
considerable discussion of the subject, and I could not agree to the
theory, that in consumption one must avoid these drugs. It was suggested
at the meeting that it was better to use the nearest allied vegetable
remedy. How would that accord with the fact of our possessing a law of
cure ; we could say we had a rule of cure, but could we call it a
law of cure ?
Dr. Leggett :
Might we not find that a vegetable remedy covered most nearly the
“curable” conditions mentioned by Hahnemann in section 3 where
he particularly tells us to look for the “curative
indications” of the disease, and to acquaint ourselves with the
“therapeutic effects” in medicines. Is there any place where
we are told to take into consideration the death symptoms, as sweat,
diarrhœa, etc., in tuberculosis ?
Dr. Nash :
It might be, but when we take into consideration that we have more
powerful remedies in our hands through potentization, and that Hahnemann
found that he could not cure with the 30th, what he could with the
higher, may we not also have reason to think that we can accomplish with
the higher or highest potencies what we could not with the lower.
Dr. Leggett :
I know from experience that the seemingly perfectly indicated remedy
cannot do in an incurable disease. The late Mrs. H—. died of
progressive spinal atrophy. Arg. nit. was
indicated, and after careful study was given high, three or four months
before her death. The increase of the terrible lancinating pains over
the body was excruciating, and no remedy, even though we called in the
council of Dr. Kent, would relieve until we finally found indications
for its antidotal remedy, Nat. mur.,
when she went down to death during the next week or two, in comfort.
When we found the antidote, we also found what had caused the < of suffering.
Dr. Nash :
I do not think Hahnemann was perfect by any means. He was human, and
could make mistakes. Perhaps, the grouping of remedies was a matter of
experience and not intended to be law. That was the case when he
mentioned remedies that were incompatible. Given a case in which Phos.
was indicated, and it had improved the case. You suddenly find a picture
of Causticum in the next group of
symptoms. What would you do ? Is there anything to be done but to
give it, and yet it has been found by men of experience, many time to
have been incompatible.
Dr. Brewster :
I think, in the first instance the remedy might have been but partly and
superficially homœopathic to the case, and that the second being more
perfectly indicated, went deeper into it, and without interfering with
the first.
Dr. Nash :
The law is divine, not human, and I cannot conceive of any exceptions to
law. A case of chronic disease cured by Mezereum
was reported by Carroll Dunham. Prescribing for the existing symptoms an
eczema-capitis appeared, which had been suppressed years before. This
cure was made by one of Hahnemann’s so-called anti-psorics. A very
severe case of cardialgia of long standing was cured by myself.
Symptoms : Paroxysms came on at 1.00 O’clock at night, and the hot
applications. Three legs to the stool. Ars.
alb. cured., but brought out an eczema on the hands, which
had been suppressed by an ointment. The prescription was made without
reference to the suppressed eczema (which was of course psoric), for I
had no knowledge of it, but upon the law of similia
the cure was the same. A case of chronic rheumatism was read so as to
indicate Pulsatilla, which was given
with the effect of restoring a suppressed gonorrhœal discharge of 20
years standing. I knew of no sycosis in the case. Is Pulsatilla
antisycotic ? Yes, if indicate by the symptoms ; so with every
other remedy. At Niagara Dr. Wesselhoeft reports a case of chronic
diarrhœa cured by Aloe, which in
the course of the action of the remedy developed decided psoric
symptoms. Hence he classes Aloe
among the anti-psorics. That’s proper. And remedy that cures psoric
troubles in anti-psoric, and any remedy indicated by the symptoms must
cure when a cure is possible, without regard to its anti-psoric or
non-antipsoric properties. This must be so, or Similia
Similibus Curantur has no foundation in fact. This is quite
true ; it has been good for all of that, but the remedy should
never be prescribed because it is an anti-psoric, etc.
Dr. Seward :
How
did Hahnemann know what drugs would prove anti-psoric, etc. ?
Dr. Brewster :
Hahnemann, had he lived, would no doubt have known more of the
applications of Homœopathy, but after having once discovered the
fallacy of prescribing for a name would never have advised the same
practice in relation to sycosis, psora, etc.
Dr. Grant :
Has
any portion of Hahnemann’s Organon
ever been repudiated ?I claim that if
Hahnemann had lived until today, he would not have grouped the remedies,
he would not have said anti-psoric, anti-sycotic, anti-syphilitic. He
would have said the indicated remedy. We are too apt to give the remedy
because it is sycosis, etc. Suppose we find a sycotic patient, and say
at once, he must have Thuja, or a suppressed eczema, and we say at once
he must have Sulphur.
Dr. Leggett :
Has
not this grouping of remedies led to a knowledge of sickness that could
have been obtained in no other way ? Has it not indelibly stamped
psora, sycosis, syphilis, upon our mind so that we have a clearer
understanding of sick symptoms than we could possibly have obtained
under any other method ? The study of the applicable drug, the
symptoms it has produced compared with those which it will cure, have
given a knowledge that some day will present pathology in a new light.
Dr. Nash :
Had
he lived he would only have called that remedy anti which when
indicated, cured the case.
Dr. Grant :
Did
Hahnemann ever say anything more than that such and such remedies would
be classed under the head of psorics, etc. ?
Dr. Nash :
No, he said nothing more than that.
Source :
Med. Advance, 1894.
Copyright © Sylvain
Cazalet 2000
