KEYNOTES IN THE HOMOEOPATHIC PRESCRIPTION, THEIR USE AND ABUSE


To conclude these few remarks on key-notes. I want today that after thirty-five years of ardent belief in the great truth of Homoeopathic therapeutics, I believe that Samuel Hahnemann just opened the door upon that vast domain. reinforcements and new knowledge await us. Modern scientific findings already sustain us. A new exactitude in the application of remedies one day be ours.


To the immature student of the art f the homoeopathic prescription, the striking symptoms of any given remedy, have ever been eagerly sought and a a rule, once recognized, they become directive factors. Three typical characteristics of a drug, we are told, their corresponding symptoms in the patient, and the stool of the prescription is balanced. Super- impose one or two agreeing modalities, and the search may be concluded. Now of course it will be said that scores of brilliantly successful result shave followed the employment of this method. Snapshot prescribing has its votaries, but the procedure has elements to be deplored, and of these I would speak later. I desire now to place the emphasis on the justification of the course in acute conditions at least.

To illustrate, some years ago, Dr. Philip Krichbaum was treating a desperate case of malignant erysipelas. Twenty-four hours of intensive study and observation of the case resulted in several remedies being given with no success. At last one peculiar system was volunteered by the nurse. The patient, blind, and with face swollen almost beyond recognition, longed for cold water, but even a tablespoonful caused an agonizing pain in his stomach, Elaps, and Elaps turned the tide with amazing rapidity. The man owed his life to the fact that his doctor remembered this one peculiar symptom of Elaps, the recognition of which, as subsequent study revealed, outlined the perfect correspondence between patient and medicine.

Another instance where a striking amelioration in a case of violent colic led to the prescribing of a remedy that exemplified the power and magic of the right drug in extremity. this man, a negro, was found literally rolling on the floor in pain. Two old school physicians has prescribed morphine hypodermically for him earlier in the attack. Quick observation revealed the fact that the patient was insistently bending backwards in his gyrations. Dioscorea got him off the floor, and in less than ten minutes the stomach released its offending contents. Nothing was left to do till the next day when it became necessary to look after a couple of abscessed punctures made by the doctors first on the nose.

In this case,a key-note of Dioscorea spelled the first said steps and as such it would appear the doctor was certainly justified in instantly badinage its directing voice. Many acute and desperate small measure of the Homoeopaths, success in acute disorders, Reasonably confident of the correctness of his medication, the homoeopathic prescriber can subsequently most comfortably and deliberately address himself to the assembling of all the fine points of diagnosis and be quite as intelligent and able to make a correct prognosis as his old school colleague. In no other field of human suffering has homoeopathy won such laurels as in the treatment of that dread disease pneumonia. The true Hahnemannian pins the great faith that is in him on his remedy.

Its selection and application is paramount. And how is this individualized medicine found? Not by laboratory findings,not by any preconceived notions of any affinity between drug and respiratory area but just by a keen analysis of seemingly insignificant exhibitions on the part of the patient. Some simple phase of time aggravation, or amelioration,character of the patients distress,show does he lie in bed, etc., etc. Such very trial details but how they illuminate the path to the selection of the one patient calls for. Keynotes, yes, and valuable beyond all the laboratory findings that the skill of man can ferret out. Type the case if you wish, know the kind of invasion and the minutes areas of involvement,. burn get the remedy first, whether the enlightenment as to its selection comes through one keynote or twenty.

In sharp contrast to the dramatics of prescribing for acute disorders, a field wherein many prominent Homoeopaths have won their great reputations, lies the on,so frequent peace disturbing contingency of the chronic patient. Dr.Henry C.Allen of Chicago, many years ago used to assure his pupils in materia medical that a case well taken was half prescribed for. Here then the question naturally arises, when it is a case well taken? Hahnemann left us definite directions, and many writers since his day have outlined the ideal method of approaching a case.

As student we were exhorted to include even the most apparent trivialities in our imaginary picture of the sick man as a whole. this is pains part of the interrogating physician. So many insignificant whimsies in the make up of the patient, deflect the course of his answers too questions, and are responsible for many modified replies. Modified descriptions, evasive descriptions, evasive descriptions, how far such often lead us from the truth. Let a patient start the story of his ills with one elicited striking keynote of some particular remedy,and like bounds on the track of a fox,many of us are off on our own line of investigation, frequently unconsciously, but the character of our inquiries, suggesting the information which the patient finally offers colored to our order. Conclusions in such instances may be wide of the mark and who is to blame?

The case is not well taken nor half taken. To mention but a few of the deterrents to the successful conduct of chronic cases take the patient who claims that he has no symptoms He cells you that his liver is chronically disturbed, and some doctor has told him that his heart is enlarged,, his blood pressure to high, in brief, he can only recite his grievances in terms of pathology. Such a patient needs to be educated to an observance of his own physical phenomena. and just there is where the element of uncertainty enters in to the evaluation of symptoms in chronic diseases.

Two or even three “rare and peculiar symptoms,” while certainly worthy of serious study, in my opinion, should never be regarded as casting the deciding vote in favor if a drug that exhibits the correspondence, Not at least till the most careful analyses of the whole case justifies much a course. further, this same analysis my lead us into different avenues of approach. It is the whole man that is sick and must be viewed from different angles. At times I believe the Homoeopathic remedy plays not a small part in the restoration of a patient. Present day psychology is developing some very rational dicta for the handing of obscure and obstinate irregulars in mans divergence from the normal,and has homoeopaths.

I believe we should welcome with enthusiasm such aid. Unrecognized psychology has doubtless always at our elbow but a defined appreciation of its subtleties and scope should be a very important parts of our equipment. Poor psychology is often responsible for the loss of a patient,even when that patient is actually getting the remedy” may find the medicine but lose the patient. No greater test cab be imposed upon a doctor than moving disease ridden patient. Death finally closes the account in cases of the incurable but the curable limp along with a speed and surety that is measured by his doctors ability to inspire a certain type of confidence and hope,as well as by his skill in prescribing.

To conclude these few remarks on key-notes. I want today that after thirty-five years of ardent belief in the great truth of Homoeopathic therapeutics, I believe that Samuel Hahnemann just opened the door upon that vast domain. reinforcements and new knowledge await us. Modern scientific findings already sustain us. A new exactitude in the application of remedies one day be ours.

MONTCLAIR, N.J.

It must first be understood that the removal of a symptom, and the cure of a disease,are two distinct things. The former should merely incidental to the latter. It is in this very matter that the disciples of Hahnemann differ most from those of Galen. Homoeopaths use symptoms as means of discovering the essential disease, which when thus betrayed is the subject of direct treatment. the followers of Galen, on the other hand, considering the totality of he symptoms as the disease proper, instead of its external manifestation, direct their remedies against them alone-American Homoeopathic Review, 1859.

Theodora Krichbaum