Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 12.djvu/140

128 128 HOMCEOPATHY of thirty-five millions, there are but 275 homoeopathic physicians. Liverpool and Glasgow, each with about half a million of population, have respectively fifteen and five homoeopathic doctors. The somewhat weak and failing condition of homoeopathy in Britain is thus contrasted by a writer in the monthly Homoeopathic Review for January 1880 with its condition in America: in four chief Ameri can cities there are 462 homoeopathic doctors, in four English towns 139; in New York city the homoeopathic physicians are to the allopathic as 1 to 6, in London the proportion is 1 to 20. The writer attributes the lower condition of homoeopathy in England to the fact &quot; that it has ceased to be a novelty, that it has revolutionized orthodox medicine, and that many of our own men (homoeopathic practitioners) abjure the minute doses which served so well in the hands of Hahnemann and many of his earlier disciples.&quot; But all these facts or factors must obtain equally in America. It is probable that the dif ferent system of medical education and qualification in the two countries has something to do with the difference. In the United States homoeopathy has naturally had freer scope than in Europe. Some have estimated the propor tion of homoeopathic practitioners in the States as being one-eighth of the whole number of legally qualified prac titioners. Every State determines for itself the conditions of qualification in medicine ; and there is thus a vast number of separate medical schools giving both education, and diplomas. Consequently there is a serious inequality in the severity of medical education and examination. In some States, as in that of Michigan, the legislature has engrafted on the university a department for teaching its youth the principles and therapeutics of homoeopathy; and very lately the same legislature has provided a hospital for the homoeopathic treatment of disease. In all countries the doctrine of homoeopathy is still with out broad scientific recognition ; and certainly in England its chief representatives are anxious to cease their existence as a distinctive school, and have, by their avowed departure from Hahnemann s law of Similia, and his mode of attenu ating and administering medicines, brought themselves under the severest condemnation of their master s few faithful followers, amongst whom are still included men of high character. We need not discuss in detail the indi vidual doctrines of Hahnemann, especially thoss just referred to, as they are scarcely fought for by those who now represent what remains of the homoeopathic school. Hahnemann s fundamental views of disease deserve more attention. He despised any deep study of disease, and theorized about it instead. Had he carefully inquired into the nature and natural history of disease as Hippocrates did, or as he himself inquired into the sensations of those who took infinitesimal doses, he would have done more for the world and his own reputation. Hahnemann was easily captivated by theories, and not very sound in his reasoning. But underlying all his system, as we have seen, was the idea that the causes of disease were impalpable, immaterial, spiritual, dynamic. And this great foundation was rotten. Modern medicine is doing some of its best work in show ing the material and the visible character of the causes of many of the commonest diseases, and suggests this in many cases where it has not as yet been demonstrated. The cause of many diseases is shown to be a living germ or particle which can be discerned under the microscope, can be carried on a lancet or in a tube, and inserted under the skin so as to produce its peculiar disease. This is true of small pox, Hahnemann notwithstanding. The germ can be preserved or it can be killed, and thus disease can be propagated or prevented. The close air of workshops, which generates consumption in such amount, can be shown to be full of impurities, chemical or organic. The causes of other diseases are often, not merely visible under a microscope, but coarsely visible. We have been lately told on high authority that to produce certain forms of blood-poisoning one or two ounces at least of septic fluid are necessary. So with other forms of common disease. Alcohol does not destroy a liver or kidney in any dynamic or immaterial form, but in coarse quantities diligently repeated. The lead which paralyses the painter s wrist is not a &quot;spiritual&quot; thing. It is an accumulation of matter in the wrong place, and enters his body in palpable quanti ties, and, what is more, can be recovered in similar quanti ties from his body. So with the uric acid or its salts in the blood of a person who has inherited his father s gout, and perhaps his port wine. It is not a &quot; spiritual &quot; affair at all, but can be demonstrated chemically and under the microscope. The itch, to whose mysterious workings Hahnemann attributed two-thirds of the internal diseases of the body, including mania, cancer, gout, &c., is easily demonstrated to be dependent on an ugly crab-like insect, which can be destroyed in a few hours with sulphur, when there is an end both of it and of the itch. We are aware of the euphemistic form which is given to Hahnemann s views of the psoric or itch disease ; and we are partly dis posed to admit, with the late Professor Henderson, the ablest and wisest of Hahnemann s supporters in England, that Hahnemann was unfortunate in the exposition of his own views of this subject. But Hahnemann s fine bub fundamental theories about the spiritual and dynamic origin of disease are all exploded by the revelations of modern pathology, and their demolition only completes that of his therapeutical theories which rested on them. Still it does not follow that homoeopathy has been of no use. Hahnemann deserves the credit of being the first to break decidedly with the old school of medical practice, in which, forgetful of the teachings of Hippocrates, nature was either overlooked or rudely opposed by wrong and ungentle methods. He was so dissatisfied with this system that he gave up practice. We can scarcely now estimate the force of character and of courage which was implied, eighty years back, in abandoning the common lines of medicine. More than this, he and his followers showed results in the treat ment of disease which compared very favourably with the results of orthodox practice. But they entirely missed the right conclusion from their experience. Let us take, for example, the statistics of the treatment of inflammation of the lung (pneumonia), adduced, not by Hahnemann, for it is one of his very weak points that he did not record cases, but ; after his death, by Dr Fleischmann of Vienna. Dr Henderson quotes these and other homoeopathic statistics with great satisfaction, and undoubtedly and properly they produced a great effect, showing a mortality of 1 in 21 cases only, which was a much higher percentage of success than under the ordinary treatment. But these statistics have since been entirely eclipsed by the minute and historical record of cases treated in the Edinburgh Infirmary, where the late Dr Hughes Bennett treated 105 cases of acute pneumonia, extending over sixteen years, without one death. Still we must admit that Fleischmann s results were greatly better than the old ones, and that but for the homoeopathic practice, which most practitioners regarded as a negation, tantamount to leaving the disease to nature, the emancipation from traditional methods of treatment would have been much slower than it was. Besides this, homoeopathy may be credited with two other services. It has given prominence to the therapeutical side of medicine, and has done much to stimulate the study of the physiological action of drugs. No doubt Hahnemann completely erred in despising nature, and in magnifying medicines in the cure of disease. But his very methods showed, unintentionally on his part, what nature could do ;