MEDICINE has always attracted those who view the sufferings of humanity as an unnecessary burden. From the discovery of anaesthetics to penicillin it has been a road of trial and error, and from the homoeopathic angle often a road of complete misery for the patients involved. One has to admit much honesty and sincere effort on behalf of the allopathic fraternity; the real quarrel one has with these people is their ability to close their eyes and minds to any other developments in medicine whether homoeopathic, osteopathic, naturopathic, or whatever springs from the work of natural healers.
While anaesthetics have proved, undoubtedly, a boon to mankind, especially in the accident section of surgery, the newer introductions of the sulphonamides and penicillin have proved, also, double edged weapons. In many cases they have been responsible for the suppression of disease, and consequently, death! Penicillin poisoning, which we were once told was of no account and very rare, has of quite recent date proved itself menacing in more than a few cases.
Is it not true that medicine involves much more than drugging, much more than surgery, much more than fancy hormone therapy and the such like! Perhaps we can make a humble claim that Homoeopathy differs with these methods insofar as it faces, realistically, questions of diet, right living, positive thinking and physical well being. One of the most important teachings of Homoeopathy is the necessity to give a patient a full and adequate interview; so much so, that without the attention to detail in the make-up of the patient little real healing could take place.
Now, what are we finding to-day in medicine on the orthodox side, particularly since the National Health Service came in? The day of the leisured interview and the family doctor attitude is over. While we welcome the progressive developments in laboratory methods and the more serious attention paid to aseptic conditions in the hospital and so on, yet the individuality in medicine is fast ceasing to exist.
Homoeopathy depends upon individuality, depends upon considering the patient as first, a human being, and afterwards a subject for curative treatment. This is both its triumph and defeat: triumph, of course, since Homoeopathy has more basic cures to its credit than Allopathy; defeat, since in fact Homoeopathy is not accepted officially, and is actually discredited by many orthodox doctors. Those of us who have known the power and wonderful healing value of Homoeopathy accept this as part of the price one pays for pioneering commonsense and natural living, confident, of course, that this system of non- suppressive treatment must assuredly come into its own, sooner or later.
This brings us to the point of this article. Since the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of the combustion engine to society, the question of speed in every department of life has been the major problem. That, in fact, is the reason for the rapid development in drugs to ease pain and to allow the quick return of the worker to an economic system that stands or falls on his labour. Is it not the main purpose of the New Health Act to cut down on the lost days to illness? Very commendable no doubt, but when one realizes that not one individual in twenty returns as he should, with vital health, then it is time to ask whether mankind is not at the beginning of a period of regimentation which it may well learn to regret in “blood and tears”!
It is most surprising to hear quite intelligent persons claim the speed of orthodox drugs over homoeopathic treatment. While that claim is completely false, the half-truth may be in the more thorough homoeopathic diagnosis and consequently the rather slower interview. But is not this the correct procedure? To be honest, would any of us enjoy National Health interviews with an overworked and frustrated doctor?
Homoeopathy requires intensive study of the Materia Medica, of the human types in relation to the treatment and potency, and a deep knowledge of psychology, in bringing out of an interview the worthwhile information for patient and practitioner. That is why the modern doctor turns to the speedy method of suppressive drug therapy. Just because so many of his patients become well again by the grace of God and Nature, this is no commendation of the allopathic system!
The problem of modern man is the problem of civilization: of the synthetic and shallow methods of living, without recourse to the healing forces of Nature. Education, diet, domestic conditions, social and personal relationships, economics and political backgrounds all require the attention of the pioneer for health and freedom. The homoeopath should be aware of all these problems and be well able to counter the false statements made agaist his weapons of healing.
He should see in his treatment not the mere tinctures and pilules of his trade but the vast array of traditional and developing knowledge of a patients needs. He should be psychologist and physiologist in one: so adding weight and dignity and healing results to a great profession. This is true medicine for all ages. If Homoeopathy has lost ground it is we who must share the responsibility, since our faith and work have been all too little for such a noble cause! If this sounds rather emotional let us consider those patients – including ourselves – who have benefited from a simple remedy of Aconite or Pulsatilla or Sulphur, of any of the more complicated remedies at higher potency, and we shall have to see the miracle in Nature as well as the scientific inventions of Man.
