WOUNDS which refuse to unite are regarded as indolent ulcers. It is amazing that hitherto the real cause of failure in these cases has not been recognized by the average surgeon.
A young girl having some trouble with her foot was admitted to a hospital in this city. The foot and leg were put in plaster of Paris, which was expected to be curative, by a well-known orthopaedic specialist. In a few hours the resulting pain led to earnest and continued complaint, which however, went unheeded by the surgeon and his assistants.
Some days later the dressing was removed and the foot was found to be mortified, the result of improper dressing. amputation was performed just above the ankle joint, in living tissues. The wound refused in spite of great local persuasion to heal. The stump was then shortened two inches, unusually long flaps being made, to insure union. Once more failure. Again re-amputation. Again failure. Then the proposition to amputate a few inches below the knee was made and declined. The patient left the hospital.
She was influenced to seek the aid of homoeopathy. It was plain that we were not merely to deal with an injury requiring local assistance, but that the whole system was at fault and needed a similar remedy. One must be able to recognise the difference between the two states if one professes to work under the law of cure.
What Hahnemannian could fail to recognize, in the case in question, the superficial, sluggish, pale, slightly-exuding sore and the pale, weak, flabby person of the patient ? A single dose of Silica, in high potency, given by the mouth, ended the matter in three weeks. The dressings were of lint only. There has been no trouble since.