The standing of German homoeopathy in relation to the entire field of medicine has, with a few unimportant exceptions, changed but little during the last century. Whatever changes and variations have taken place are to be found for the most part within the homoeopathic movement itself. Whenever representatives of the allopathic school, the prevailing method, came into contact with a homoeopathic physician, whether in medical discussion or in personal relation, they followed the accepted custom, and used only the conventional forms, which fact did not help to bridge over the deep gulf between the open or secret opponents.
Always and everywhere the order to keep away was consistently followed, indeed, there are no single recorded cases in which this most cases even the requirements of good breeding were not observed. The followers of the teachings of Hahnemann were branded by every opponent of the sect as preposterous and ridiculous, often as dangerous to public welfare. How far homoeopathy, as a steadfast minority during this conflict of over a century, allowed itself to be drawn into indiscretions and practical errors, which increased her isolation, her meagre history has suggested.
Perhaps her future history will show more clearly the way and reason of the official ostracism which used the spoken word, writing and deeds to protect the sacred dogma of the prevailing scientific opinion in period of purely mechanical materials and to save it from attacks and eventually destruction. However all these things may be whatever may be the factors which influence its development, today we stand before the accepted fact that mechanical thinking in medicine is wavering.
In vain the exact scientific school of thinking tries to hold back the mightily advancing thought of a vital art of healing, which is in no way disposed to deny its fundamental principle, but aims to show them its place and keep them within their own limitation.
It is not to be wondered at that at such a time, one comes across questions and experiences in connection with sick humanity which often consciously (also often unconsciously) approach the problem with an open-mindedness little known before, and consider the subject in the same vitalistic way as the homoeopathy of Hahnemann suggests. Without any question homoeopathy was played an active part in this entire development, especially in the last century. One might even maintain that it has been the principle factor in bringing medicine to its present status.
The essential question is not whether in this or that case the homoeopathic treatment, Hahnemann and his distinguished followers, were right in their views and assertions. It is true these are interesting questions and worthy of consideration, but the important thing is to consider how professional recognition in the medical field may be secured. The inheritance from Hahnemann and his school was not entirely unused during the last hundred years but it was not fully used especially in its therapeutic value.
Scientific medicine since the time of Hahnemanns life has had his ideals and his experiments at its disposal, and has had full opportunity to examine their validity, to profit by them, and to perfect them; but very few attempts were made and many of them were lost by the destructive attacks made upon them. His propositions and principles were called errors and again the objection to his teaching both in theory and practice was reached.
Today these conditions have changed in many ways, and that change has been to the advantage of homoeopathy even in officials places. Distinguished scientific scholars took exception to the prevailing method of examining the teachings of Hahnemann and the consequent superficial manner of judgment, and approached the problems in a more impersonal and practical way. This method of procedure Dr. Hugh Schulz introduced to a large extent in Greifswald, while he has professor of pharmacology in the university at the place.
Schulz, the Greifswald homoeopath, as the critics soon christened him, upheld in his lectures, in numerous articles and magazines, that which he had recognized as true in his own experiments and experiences. Among these writings are his classical treatises on the action of Sulphur, Silica, Iron, Chin., Veratrum, and Nux v. upon the healthy man. The Arndt-Schulz biological fundamental principle, Schulzs explanation of the proposition similia similibus curantur, his discussion of the potency and of the dose, his teachings of the use of medicine, both organic and inorganic, his publications in regard to the significance of Hahnemanns teaching received little scientific attention.
They were either laughed at or pushed aside they were not even seriously considered by his opponents. For many students this new kind of first contact with homoeopathy. Schulz himself, who on account of his great age has retired, experienced great surprise about forty years after his first attempts with the homoeopathic method of dosing when Prof. Dr.Augut Bier, the prominent surgeon of Berlin University, came before the public with his experience with homoeopathy. Bier, who had been with Schulz in Greifswald, got many suggestions from him, as he says himself, in his publication of the year 1925, which was since become well-known (A. Bier, What Shall Be Our Attitude Toward Homoeopathy? repr. from the Munich Medical Weekly).
Prof. Bier has secured positive results through his experiments with homoeopathic medicine. He feels that Hahnemann has gone to the roots of things. He finds an astonishing attitude toward homoeopathic thought which he has come to recognize after a comprehensive study of its sources. he judges homoeopathy as on one has done since the time of Schulz, and he doesnt forget the critics. From Birers clinic come theses on the wonderful healing art (Zreizkorpertherapie) written by his assistant, A. Zimmer.
This work aroused the attention of scientific circles, because Zimmer went far beyond the old conclusions, and it was not difficult to find a parallel between his theories and the practical experiences of homoeopathic physicians. Also the reports from Biers skin clinic, under Dr. Richter, support Biers first experiments with Sulphur iodatum, and uphold his conclusions in regard to homoeopathy.
If we stop here a minute in the year 1925 and cast a backward glance to the situation of homoeopathy in the time directly after the war, we notice no visible sign of its later development. If we are to draw any conclusions from the number of it s hospitals and clinics, the outlook is very discouraging.
The homoeopathic hospital founded in Berlin, in 1904, (Grosslichterfelde) could not pay its expenses after the war, and was given up entirely at the period of the inflation. The small military hospitals in Berlin and Stuttgart, whose work had been made possible through the generosity of a few people, were closed after the war. Since 1883 Munich has has a small homoeopathic hospital for which it was indebted to an organization.
It was build over in 1912. After the war it was given over to other purposes, but after a few years it came back to its original use. There were polyclinic consultations held in Leipzig, Berlin, Munich, STuttgart, Breslau and a few other towns; but even these small activities were interrupted from time to time and their continuation was in danger.
The new homoeopathic hospital in Stuttgart (over 100 beds), which had been guaranteed by private individuals, and plans for which had been decided upon in the year 1914, was worked at during the first years of the war, but the work soon came to a standstill. The organization of the Stuttgart Homoeopathic Hospital which was financing this new building lost the money it had at hand at the time of the fall in value of the money it had at hand at the time of the fall in value of the German mark. Germany was without a homoeopathic hospital. More than 400 homoeopathic physicians and a few million of lay people, who were used to homoeopathic treatment, could do nothing but wait and see how the catastrophe was going to end.
In those days there were not very many new publications in homoeopathic literature. Generally physicians were referred to the publications that had appeared before the that 1914. The two publications for physicians (the Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung an the Berliner Homoeopathische Zeitschrift) appeared in smaller editions, and they and difficulty in existing through these uncertain years. For the homoeopathic laity there appeared, under the same difficulties, several publications: The Leipzige Populare Zeitschrift fur Homoeopathic (Publication Schwabe, Leipzig); the Homoeopathischen Monatsblatter (publication Hahnemannian, Stuttgart): the Homoeopathische Rundschau (Homop. Zentrl Verlag, Berlin).
The relation of homoeopathy to medicine in general and to science has been mentioned briefly. Only a few homoeopathic physicians had succeeded in getting articles into medical magazines. To the “outsider” the medical professional press was, with a few exceptions, entirely closed. The grounds for considering disease according to the method of the homoeopathic school became gradually more favorable, as a change took place in the ideas in regard to sickness and health, and the over-worked laboratory no longer was looked to for the only verdict. Constitutional conditions, personality, internal secretions, pathological physiology, and psychology made one breach after another in the wall of the mechanical composition of disease.
