WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH HOMOEOPATHY


Under all the present opposition, taunting sneers, etc., homoeopathic physicians must stand their ground, meet critics on a high level of competence, with no slinking away, no sense of inferiority. They must stand up, be counted and take the lead that is theirs. Early Homoeopaths did that and in the early days there was more appreciation and admiration for what these doctors could do.


[ * Read before the Bureau of Homoeopathic Philosophy, I.H.A., June 25, 1952].

The Homoeopathic Recorder, January, 1953.

First let us consider some of the oft – repeated reasons for the failure of Homoeopathy. One of those most frequently voiced is that it has no scientific background, it must fail by all scientific tests; another is that there is no proof of its truth; another that it has not held in the progress of medicine; again, that the number of its adherents must lessen as time goes on; and, finally, that it can have no place in modern medicine in the present kind of medical education.

Now, let us take a little time to discuss evidences for contradiction of these statements. It has no scientific back – ground and must fail by all scientific tests. In the first place, what is scientific? The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives this definition: “Concerned with the acquisition of accurate and systematic knowledge of principles by observation and deduction.” A sample given in this volume is “Scientific investigation.” (By the way, scientific has superseded sciential which is the proper adjective from science says this encyclopaedia.) Whatever my be said against Homoeopathy, no one who has investigated it seriously could say that it is not based on accurate and systematic knowledge of principles, or that it is not based on constant and detailed observation and deduction from such observation.

Its background for a hundred and fifty years is a constant illustration of that statement. The ones who wish to do so, that is, unbiased investigators, become the most enthusiastic adherents to homoeopathic principles. The practice of its students furnishes a quantity of clinical results which become lasting evidence of the value of this method of therapeutics. One of the highest proof is found in the upbuilding of the human race. At present it is not judged by true adherents but by a half – baked variety and by opponents in so – called regular medicine. It is gaining more adherents every day among scientists and other deep thinkers in all lines of modern discovery. It has a place in the fore – front of modern medicine and is sought now more than every by disillusioned students of so – called modern medicine.

Why then is Homoeopathy not more successful in the eyes of the public? Here are a few reasons: The typical homoeopathic physicians mind is not suited to publicity. These doctors are so busy quietly curing people that there is no room for lecturing, doing much talking or writing. The majority are not given to talking with patients, neither are the majority of homoeopathic physicians suited to organizational planning or action. Homoeopathy is too young yet to cope with entire success with well – seasoned older groups. On the other hand, the older groups are not inclined, as yet, to look into its principles, being satisfied to scoff at and belittle methods of healing they know nothing about. Perhaps they are jealous of new things in their midst. This happens over and in history.

It is not the right age for Homoeopathy to come into its own. This also conforms to history, for it has almost become a habit that new things must to through a period of criticism and belittlement, before the truth about them is recognized.

What needs to be done bring Homoeopathy into its own place? There must be earnest contemplation by each homoeopathic prescriber of all the items mentioned above, followed by a definite program of new effort. Plans must be made to harmonize with study of the whole situation as outlined in the following to sections:

First, where are homoeopathic physicians at falt? These physicians must take the lead in bringing their own heritage before the public if they wish to keep the name Homoeopathy. They must realize that others students of science, philosophy, etc.) will do it soon if they do not, and will bring homoeopathy before the public under another name, In such a case the last hundred and fifty of homoeopathy in the world will be regarded as a hazy forerunner only.

Under all the present opposition, taunting sneers, etc., homoeopathic physicians must stand their ground, meet critics on a high level of competence, with no slinking away, no sense of inferiority. They must stand up, be counted and take the lead that is theirs. Early Homoeopaths did that and in the early days there was more appreciation and admiration for what these doctors could do.

Second, wherein are homoeopathic laymen at fault? Most of them are asleep at the switch, not awake to their grand opportunity. They could build up a formidable organization in numbers and ability (they are the thinking people, the elite of cultural attainment); they could make plans to provide for the education of young doctors in Homoeopathy, to find medical students to take homoeopathic courses, to learn its philosophy themselves in order to answer questions correctly and satisfactory to provide for lectures, radio talks, written questions, etc., etc.

How shall we go to work to consider the situation? All the foregoing tells us how. Let us wake up, recognize our wonderful opportunity for what it is, concert our power to bring Homoeopathy into its rightful place. This would free humanity from the evil – effects of past mistaken treatment, crippling inheritance, unfavourable environment, criminal suppression of emotional and clinical symptoms, and bring to it unbounded health.

There is nothing wrong with Homoeopathy, nothing at all. We live in the dregs of an age and the dregs are awful. Other ages have come and gone; they have had awful dregs, too. In every one of them has grown up a small band of forward – looking deep thinkers. These people hold stead – fastly the keys to progress in the new age which has already dawned. In Homoeopathy our own small band holds the promise of great things. Its members need only to stand together to bring in the time when this method will be recognized for what it is. No, there is nothing the matter with Homoeopathy, nothing at all. We must get the crusading spirit back into the minds and hearts of doctors and laymen as it was in the early days of Homoeopathy.

Good – bye pessimistic thoughts, doubtful minds, timid souls, for the opportunity is here and the time is now.

Julia M. Green