THE DEFENCE OF HOMEOPATHY. "Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturæ judicia confirmat.” CICERO. "Time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the JOHNSON. DR. ROUTH commences by stating that it is "at the request of several distinguished friends, that he has been "induced to publish in a separate form his researches on the subject of Homœopathy." His book moreover has been frequently referred to by medical men attached to the old mode of practice, as containing their arguments against Homœopathy. It may therefore fairly be presumed that it expresses the present views of that portion of the profession. A reply seems called for on the part of Homeopathy. Dr. Routh then observes that "this system (of Homœopathy) has unfortunately lately made, and continues to make such progress in this country, and the metropolis in particular, and is daily extending its influence, even amongst the most learned, and those whose high position in society gives them no little moral power over the opinions of the multitude, that our profession is, I think, bound to make it the subject of enquiry and investigation." For this statement Homœopathists are obliged to Dr. Routh. It expresses in forcible words an important truth,-the rapid spread of Homœopathy among that portion of the community best able to appreciate its value; and it well seconds their own oft-repeated and urgent request that medical men would make Homœopathy the subject of enquiry and investigation. Dr. Routh next proceeds to remark that "violent opposition to Homœopathy can do no good. Abuse, intolerance cannot be accepted by the world as a fair and philosophical enquiry. These can only call forth new defenders. All doctrines are founded on truth, or what is supposed to be truth. The way to disprove a doctrine is therefore, not by assailing it as ridiculous or absurd,—a conviction of error can only follow when the foundations upon which it is based are shown to be untenable. Examples of such unphilosophical demeanour in refusing fair enquiry, or prosecuting an ex parte investigation are not wanting. Thus the Homoeopathist has reason on his side when he appeals to the history of the French Academy, as exemplifying intolerance and unfairness in enquiry. He tells us that in 1642, this assembly declared that the blood did not circulate in the body; in 1672, that it was impossible. In 1774, after having opposed inoculation for fifty years, it admitted its advantages, the moment three Princes of the Royal blood had been inoculated contrary to their permission. In 1609, it expelled one of its members for making use of, and curing his patients of ague by quinine. Even among ourselves the great Harvey was persecuted for his discovery (of the circulation of the blood). The time was when the surgeon who had dared to bring together the edges of a cut surface to unite by the first intention, (that is to heal immediately,) or who had ventured to dress wounds by water dressings, in lieu of plugging by large pieces of lint and cerate, (by which means the healing of the wounds was protracted for weeks or even months,) met with the universal reprobation of the profession, and was accused of quackery. Even in later years, with what opprobrious names was the discovery of (vaccination by) the great Jenner assailed! Nay, but very recently, with what violence was the introduction of the stethoscope opposed! and in the present year how have not certain physician-operators been insulted by the ascription of motives, not certainly the most honourable." These parallels clearly exhibit the unfair reception which Homœopathy has hitherto met with from the bulk of the medical profession. I have only to thank Dr. Routh for having so well expressed the true state of the case. Thus far for introduction. Dr. Routh next addresses himself to the investigation of Homœopathy. To this I will apply myself with all seriousness, and in such a manner that I trust neither Dr. Routh nor my readers will have just cause to complain of any impropriety on my part. I agree with Dr. Routh that "he only is the true philosopher who can so far separate his mind from the bias of the day as to extricate it from the dazzling perplexities which surround him, and by adopting only those conclusions which logical reasoning deduces, is enabled, out of this labyrinth to bring out truth." Instead of adopting Dr. Routh's division of the subject, I shall prefer the following: First, the consideration of the principle of Homœopathy— "Similia similibus curantur.” Secondly, the question of small doses. Thirdly, the statistics upon which is founded a preference of Homœopathy, as the most successful method yet known of treating diseases. 1st. The principle of Homœopathy, or the supposed law of nature upon which it is based. Dr. Routh observes that "this law is defined by Hahnemann as follows:- That in order to cure in a mild, prompt, safe, and durable manner, it is necessary to choose, in each case, a medicine that will incite an affection similar (òμolov malos) to that against which it is employed.' It was, it is said, discovered in 1790, by Hahnemann, while engaged in translating Cullen's Materia Medica." Having endeavoured to explain this principle in Tract No. 1,* entitled "What is Homoeopathy ?" I need not repeat that explanation here. I will suppose that my readers understand the basis of Homœopathy, the general fact or maxim "similia similibus curantur." In all controversies it is well, I think, to ascertain first how far the parties are agreed. Let us see, therefore, how far Dr. Routh assents to this principle, before we consider his objections. 66 Allopaths, admitting the occasional truth of this doctrine, 'similia similibus curantur' have given the larger dose. The experiments of Majendie have shown, that tartar emetic, in doses of six to eight grains, will produce, amongst other lesions, pneumonia, if not rejected by vomiting. Every day's experience proves the efficacy of large doses of tartar emetic in curing pneumonia and other affections of the lungs. Arsenious acid, long continued, will produce a variety of cutaneous eruptions. The advantage of arsenic in many of these diseases is, on the other hand, well recognised. Certain peculiar eruptions which occur after taking mercury, have been described as produced by it, and which closely resemble those against which mercury is a specific. Here then are instances of the occasional truth of this law." (Page 6.) Our thanks are due to Dr. Routh for such excellent examples of the law of Homoeopathy. We have only to go on with other instances. Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, two and twenty centuries ago, says that a drug which will produce strangury, will cure it, when it has arisen from another cause, and Dr. Greenfield, a member of the Royal College of Physicians in London, was sent to Newgate in 1694, by the President of his College, for giving cantharides, (the blistering fly, which all know often produces complaints of the bladder), with great success in cases of this kind. Again, every one knows that cinchona (Peruvian bark), is a specific for ague; "Now," says Dr. Routh, "bark certainly produces symptoms, as alleged by Homœopathists, very like those of ague." Again, our thanks are due to Dr. Routh. Nitric acid is a great remedy for salivation,-Dr. Pereira, (an eminent allopathic authority,) says it excites or produces salivation. Sulphur often produces eruptions on the skin, as those who frequent baths like Harrogate well know; it is notorious as a remedy for similar affections. Thus we might proceed, not only through the fifty medicines originally proved in this way by Hahnemann himself, but through upwards of three hundred which have been proved since his day, by the persevering industry of others. Nearly all known medicines have been thus examined,-a larger number than is included in the Materia Medica of the College of Physicians as * And more fully in Tracts No. 3 and No. 7. published in their official Pharmacopoeia. A strong method of testing such a principle as this is to select a poison, and note the symptoms produced by it, and then to give it in smaller doses to cases of natural disease suffering from similar symptoms,--but for which it has never before been given as a medicine; if it be found to cure such cases, the truth of the law is greatly maintained. This has been done in many cases,-an allusion to one instance will suffice. Belladonna, the deadly nightshade. Children have been poisoned by the berries of this plant, when they have met with them in the woods and eaten them. They have suffered from fever, affection of the brain and throat, and a scarlet eruption on the skin. Hahnemann was induced to test the principle which had been suggested to his mind by an appeal to this experiment; he gave Belladonna in scarlet fever, and found not only that it was a better remedy than any previously known, but that it is also proved a preservative from it when given to those exposed to the infection of the scarlet fever. That which is merely a suspicion in a single instance, becomes a strong probability when confirmed by so many important examples as are adduced by Dr. Routh, and an established reality when it is found not only that it is applicable to hundreds of other substances, but that no serious or material exception can be brought forward against it. This law is now ascertained to be a practical guide to the best use that can be made of every valuable remedy we are possessed of. Homœopathists put it to a continual and daily test, and it does not fail them. The few exceptional instances which Dr. Routh adduces against it are of the most meagre description; he goes with us a long way in the admission of the principle, we have only to carry him with us a little further. Suffer me to ask, why do Astronomers rely upon the law of gravitation? They put it to continual tests, and it does not fail them. So let the law of similia be tried, and so let it be trusted till it fails. Thus Dr. Routh's opposition to the principle of Homœopathy seems to have disappeared. His own instances have laid a founda tion which only required to be built upon, that it might become an impregnable castle of truth. We may now proceed to the second matter in discussion : 2nd. The small dose. This is a great stumbling block with Dr. Routh, as it is with many others. Let us, however, as we have done in the consideration of the principle, first ascertain how far Dr. Routh goes along with us, and then we shall perhaps know better where we differ. "It is certainly true," says Dr. Routh, "that small doses, and especially in large dilution, (which is the mode in which Homœoathic remedies are prepared,) will oftentimes act very satisfac torily." (Page 17.) How does he know it? he replies, "repeatedly." "I have seen this,” How small the doses were which he has seen act thus satisfactorily, Dr. Routh does not inform us, but this is of little moment. It is obvious that he has gone a certain length with the small doses, and that, so far as he has gone experimentally, they have acted very satisfactorily in his hands. The limit then of this satisfactory action is the same as the limit of Dr. Routh's experience. So far as he has tried them they have acted very satisfactorily, he has tried none so small that they have failed him. Now, this is precisely what every one testifies; so far as any have tried them, the doses becoming smaller and smaller, or, in other words, more and more diluted, they have acted satisfactorily. To this point then we are agreed; so far as either of us have ascertained this practical point experimentally, we have obtained satisfactory action from our doses. We begin to differ only where Dr. Routh's experience ceases, and he begins to conjecture. It is well to make this point clearly evident. Dr. Routh was about to define the limit of the legitimate and satisfactory dose,-smaller than which every dose would be "a piece of affectation." (Page 7.) He says that what he has seen repeatedly is certainly true; does it not, therefore, seem extraordinary that he did not go on trying smaller and smaller doses so long as they continued to act satisfactorily, and until they became so small as to cease to do so? Had Dr. Routh pursued this course, selecting his medicines in each case in accordance with the law of similia, his testimony would have been of weight, but instead of proceeding thus, he has ventured to condemn every dose less than those he has himself tried, for the following reason:-"We are compelled," he says, "to conclude that the infinitesimal doses, neither by analogy, nor upon any theoretical grounds, can have any power upon the human frame.' (Page 16.) But, in a case so peculiar as the action of drugs upon a living body, what analogy or what theory have we to guide us? Is it not a matter of experience? A question of fact? By what analogy, or theory, did Dr. Routh ascertain that his small doses in large dilution would act very satisfactorily? His reply is the only sensible one which can be given. "I have seen it repeatedly, therefore I believe it to be certainly true!" Suppose then he were to try still smaller doses, (which, perhaps, true analogy would lead him to do,) and suppose he were to see that these also acted very satisfactorily, will he not know that this also is certainly true? What then will become of his analogy and theory? It is a vain pretence. These are questions of fact, and the public have reason to be aggrieved with Dr. Routh, for objecting, from false analogy and theory, to a matter asserted to be a fact which he refuses to verify by "seeing" it. |