Roberts H A
At the convention in Washington, the condition of the International Hahnemannian Associations finances were gone into very carefully in relation to the work that has been carried on. The Association took a forward step in recommending that the members be urged to give one dollar a week for the next year toward the maintenance and publication of The Homoeopathic Recorder, in order to allow us to continue its publication. Much interest in this plan was shown by the members, and many pledged themselves to give this amount during they year, several paying the full amount at once.
As far as The Recorder publication is concerned, the situation is critical, and unless finances are forthcoming for its publication, we will have to case publishing it.
This is the most outstanding teaching journal in the homoeopathic field, and it represents the concept of homoeopathy and teaches homoeopathic principles in a way that no other journal attempts to do. This teaching force gives those in distant locations and opportunity to develop their knowledge of and ability to use homoeopathy.
The geographic distribution of The Homoeopathic Recorder is the most extensive of any homoeopathic journal published, and with its sole function as a teaching journal, it is filling a long felt want and serves as a missionary of homoeopathy throughout the world.
It is hopes that an appeal to the members of the I.H.A. and to the readers of The Recorder who have been benefited from its pages, and whose patients have been benefited, will so arouse interest and assistance that they will come to the rescue and that the work may go on.
We are appealing for help through the efforts of the readers and through the interest they may arouse in patients who have benefited by their treatment to give us liberal support to continue our work.
Remember: IF THE RECORDERS IS TO SURVIVE EACH MUST TOO HIS PART. You will want a part in this work. H.A. ROBERTS, M.D. Editor and Business Manager.
The fifty-second annual meeting of the International Hahnemannian Association was held at the Hotel Powhatan, Washington, D.C., June 9, 10, 11, 1932.
This was one of the best meetings held for many years, setting a record even among many notable meetings. In spite of the present financial conditions, an encouraging number of members were in attendance. The “pillars” of the Association, Dr. Brown, Dr. Boger, Dr. Green, Dr. Hayes, Dr. Spalding, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Underhill, the DR. Pulford, and others equally as well known to Hahnemannian homoeopaths were in continued attendance. Others, equally stalwart in the cause were able to be present but a part of the session.
One of the most encouraging features in this period, when so many look with misgivings on the future of homoeopathy, was the attendance of the younger men in the homoeopathic profession, and their deep interest in the essays and discussions.
Ten physicians were elected to active or associate membership, some of them were men who are already honourable seniors in their devotion to homoeopathic practice who had never come personally into contact with these feasts of homoeopathic thought-men who had studied and practised in comparative isolation from their fellow Hahnemannians, often forced to the belief that they must struggle on alone without the sustaining knowledge of the strong belief in the Law of Cure which is held by many of their brethren. Some of the new members were men who had come into a new appreciation of the principles of homoeopathy from fresh application to study and practice, and some were young men who crave the inspiration of contact with men and women of richer experience in the profession.
The Bureaus were rich in their offerings. The Bureau of Homoeopathic Philosophy, under the chairmanship of Dr. Ray W. spalding, had a number of most helpful papers on vital force and the necessity of considering man as an entity-a unit-and so happily did these essays dovetail that it was difficult to believe that the essayists had not collaborated to produce a symposium. Even the papers in the Bureau of Materia Medica, under the chairmanship of Dr. Dayton T. Pulford, expressed the same atmosphere, showing how closely the knowledge of our remedies must harmonize with an understanding of the life principles.
The Bureau of Surgery, under Dr. Hayes, presented papers of interest to every thoughtful practitioner of whatever school, but with special interest to the Hahnemannian. The Bureau of Obstetrics and Pediatrics, under the chairmanship of Dr. Grace Stevens, offered a wide range of timely topics, from a report of the White House Conferences on child Health and Protection to the barbarous customs of African tribes in maiming their young women in rites of which the meaning is long since forgotten, a contrast of the two extremes of civilization. Of more interest to the Hahnemannian homoeopathist, however, was Dr. Overpecks paper, read in his absence by another physician, Concerning the Morning and Evening of Life.
Those who appreciate the power of the similimum can readily appreciate its power to unfold the intelligence of undeveloped and feeble minded children, and to restore to those on lifes shadowed slopes some of the mental vigor that was formerly theirs.Dr.Dayton Pulfords paper on the thymus gland was of practical value, as was Dr. Websters report on cases. The general and rather prolonged discussion on the use of tobacco by the mother in relation to the young child left the matter where it was taken up, little of definite bearing on the subject being brought into the discussion. Dr. Eugene Underhill, Jr., presented an interesting Bureau of Clinical Medicine.
Unfortunately from the pressure of business brought before the Convention, this Bureau was late in starting and therefore was compelled to run well into the afternoon so that the attendance was diminished. Many of these essays merited a larger audience, for instance Dr. Dixons Be Sure You Are Right, Then Stick to It. This might have served as well in the Bureau of Philosophy, for Dr. Dixon had the courage to point out some mistakes in contrast to the successes which are usually reported. Dr. Alfred Pulford presented another set of Homoeopathic Leaders, this time in diphtheria, for which the readers of The Recorder may well be grateful.
Dr. Grimmers essay on Asthma and Undulant Fever presented a modern problem successfully me with by Hahnemannian principles. Dr. Stearns gave a paper and a demonstration of the scientific value of the relationship of the infinitesimal when brought into contact with the physical susceptible patient. Dr. Stearns has devoted years of patient effort to this phase of research work and feels he has arrived at the beginning and taken definite steps toward the relation of physics to the imponderable in medicine. When these laws are fully demonstrated they will place a new viewpoint and sustain an advance in the scientific world, for they will demonstrate beyond doubt the power of the infinitesimal in its relation to natural law.
No word picture can give an adequate description of the practical value of these papers and the consequent discussions. Those who attend find themselves students in an intensive postgraduate course, where each can gain help for his own particular problems.
Dr. Brown piloted the Association through another particularly successful convention, and relinquished the presidency into the hands of Dr. Julia Green. Those who know Dr. Greens past efforts in the interests of homoeopathy feel that Dr. Brown has and able successor and the I.H.A. an able leader.
The members of the I.H.A. and their friends sat down to dinner at the Hotel Powhatan on the first evening of the Convention. This family gathering is always a happy occasion, and this year was no exception. At the close the group was jointed by the Laymens League, and Mr. Arthur B. Green, of that group, gave an interesting talk. Mrs. Stuart Close entertained with her gift of interpreting on the piano.
The second evening of the Convention was occupied by an interesting symposium on post-graduate education. Dr. Grimmer speaking for the work of the Hahnemann Institution in Chicago, which is now concentrating largely on correspondence work as a beginning in developing interest in better homoeopathy. Dr. Spalding spoke of the work of the Post-Graduate School of the american foundation for Homoeopathy; Dr. Underhill told of the Round Table in Philadelphia, and Dr. Hayes spoke of the results gained from individual study groups. H.A.R.
In the May issue of The Recorder is a short reprint, entitled Who Are the Regulars? Which shows the unanimous choice of a remedy in a test case by ten homoeopathic physicians and the multiplicity of prescriptions by a like number of allopathic physicians. this sounds like a great feat for homoeopathy, and so it is, but we are reminded of a number of cases from the pages of The Recorder, from the American Foundation Post Graduate School, from clinics and from consultations, where a different remedy was suggested for the same case by several different Homoeopathy physicians, no two being alike. We ask why? Under the last three types of cases the patient was seen by all physicians, who had the opportunity of hearing the patients story, asking their own questions, making their own observations.
In the printed cases this, of course, was not so, but all had the same material with which to pick the remedy. We realize that many elements enter into the correct choice of the similimum in a case not mixed and hidden by previous incorrect medication. These include the ability to observe correctly, the ability to properly get the patients story, the greater ability to evaluate the mass of descriptive symptoms, subjective and objective, and arrive at the true picture of the sick person, and finally the knowledge and ability to match this picture against the many, many thousands of symptoms listed in the provings of our numerous remedies which, in themselves, number several thousands. This can only be done by careful repertory, study, not only in the early days of formation of the individuals homoeopathic knowledge but all the way throughout his entire period of practice.
There are three general types of repertories:.
1. The Kent Repertory.
This repertory is a long list of symptoms compiled by Dr. Kent and his pupils from all the repertories existing at that time, and from clinical verifications from private practice. These are arranged according to a very definite schema. It is only after long and careful study that one is able to thoroughly master this marvellous book. And it well merits such study.
2. The Boenninghausen Repertory.
This repertory is based on the theory that every complete symptom consists of three parts, locality, sensation and conditions of aggravation and amelioration. Its great value is in theory of concomitants, that is, “the co-existence of other symptoms under the same circumstances”. Thus “symptoms which exist in an incomplete state in some part of a given case can be reliably completed by analogy, by observing the conditions of other parts of the case”. This method is used by many of the masters and proves very reliable and easy to master.
3. The Boger General Analysis and Synoptic Key of the Materia Medica.
These were complied from all existing repertories and from clinical verifications from the doctors private practice. “The General Analysis is an effort to facilitate assembling of essential symptom groups for comparison.” Many, many remedies appearing under rubrics from many sources were assembled and co- ordinated numerically according to the actual value given them by the different authors. The most prominent ones are found in this Analysis.
This method is an excellent one based on a solid foundation, but again it requires much study to thoroughly master it.
These are all excellent methods and should arrive at the same similimum if the physician properly evaluate the symptoms and knows how to search the maze of repertory symptoms to reach the goal of a perfect, or as near perfect as possible, matching of the symptoms of the sick patient with those of the prover.
Time and time again we have made a choice of a remedy from certain leading symptoms of a remedy, well known, only to find on referring to the repertory that other remedies, less well known, showed the same symptoms also in highest degree and on further search our first choice proved incorrect.
Intuitive prescribing, truly intuitive, is founded on careful repertory and materia medica study stored in the subconscious for future use. So-called intuitive prescribing. The failure is due to the suggestion in the paragraph immediately above.
We suggest that a more general repertory immediately by made of all cases and a comparison of the results before and after be compared. It may take a little more time but we are confident that the implication conveyed in the above mentioned article, who Are the Regulars? will be true in a much larger per cent of cases after such a study, and that the individual successes will increase for the glory of homoeopathy. E.B.L.