EDITORIAL. "When we have to do with an art whose end is the saving of human life, any neglect to make ourselves thoroughly masters of it becomes a crime."-HAHNEMANN. THE BEATEN TRACK.-In the following letter, which speaks for itself, the author asks some pertinent questions in which every reader of the ADVANCE is deeply interested, and which we trust will receive a careful perusal: Editor Advance. For many years I have been a subscriber to the ADVANCE and have always been pleased with the principles advocated in its editorial columns, especially for the past two years. I wish I could say as much for the opinions expressed by some of its contributors, in some of the papers recently published in its pages, by Drs. Skinner, Guernsey and others. As for any potency of Lycopodium curing an apoplexy or cerebral congestion as Dr. Skinner assumed is not only absurd but irrational, for you cannot find a single symptom of the disease in the provings of Lycopodium in any Materia Medica. It is moreover irrational from the standpoint of the dose-the c. m. potency-even if prepared centesimally by Dr. Skinner from a plant which he brought from Scotland. All such healing of the sick belongs to the "faith healers" and the "mind curers." They pretend to be true Hahnemannians, yet you will see how far they have wandered from the beaten path of the Master, by referring to page 765 Lesser Writings, where, in his letter to Schreter, Hahnemann says: "I do not approve of your dynamizing the medicines higher than the 30th and 60th potencies. There must be some end to the thing; it cannot go on to infinity." I highly approve of the advice you gave a young Allopath in the January issue as to how he should proceed to study and practice Homœopathy and would like to have you give the same advice to all your erring brethren of the ultra high potency school, Dr. Lippe and the members of the Hahnemannian Association, who by their insane departures have given Homœopathy the severest blow it has received since it was first promulgated by its immortal founder. Relegate to the waste basket all clinical cases in which the writer pretends to have cured any disease, either acute or chronic, with a potency above the 30th, and tell these men who have strayed from the beaten track to return to the true Hahnemannian fold and peace and quietness will reign in our family. SAMUEL R. DUBS. DOYLESTOWN, PA., Aug. 11, 1887. As a pioneer in our school, as one of the founders of the American Institute, as an earnest student and an honest Homœopath we gladly welcome any contribution from the pen of our correspondent. But an honest man may be honestly mistaken and may honestly entertain an error. We believe this to be largely true with our allopathic brother. We know that he is mistaken, and we ask him to honestly investigate a fact in therapeutics; to put the law of the similars to the test of practical experiment and proclaim the failures to the world. But he declines to do so. Some one has told him that Homoeopathy was a humbug; that at most, it was only a system of small doses, without any reference to the mode of selecting the remedy, and he has neither the courage nor the manliness to accept a fact for what it is worth and hence rejects it altogether. We assure him that if he would try Hahnemann's method of selecting the remedy-prescribing for the totality of the subjective and objective symptoms presented by the patient, instead of the disease-he would obtain with the third or sixth potency much quicker, better and far more satisfactory results than he does with his crude doses. But we cannot convince him until we cure some patient which he has pronounced incurable. Then he obtains a glimpse of the value of law as a guide in therapeutics; but, loaded down with pathological theories and palliative methods he becomes at best but a half-hearted Homoeopath and continues to prescribe for diseases, using low potencies and small doses. The quantity of medicine, the size of the dose is still a stumbling block, when in fact it has little or nothing to do with it. If the proper remedy be selected, the smallest quantity, how small, we do not know, will cure; on the other hand, quantity, however great, cannot atone for imperfect selection. Neither ten drop doses of the mother tincture, nor the thousandth potency of Aconite will cure a patient, if Aconite be not the simillimum. As serious a blunder can be made with one as with the other. Now, the error under which Dr. Dubs is laboring is a very common one. He assumes that Drs. Skinner and Guernsey on the one hand and Hughes and Hempel on the other, are of the same homoeopathic faith, being alike followers of and believers in Hahnemann and selecting the remedy in the same manner, while the real fact is that their methods are as widely different as are the poles asunder. Let us compare the men, their methods and their practice. Hering, Dunham, Lippe, Skinner, Guernsey. The inductive philosophy of Bacon. The strict inductive method of Hahnemann. Selecting the remedy from the totality of the symptoms, subjective and objective. Individualization. Even in incurable cases the indicated simillimum is the best possible palliative. Homœopathy is good enough for him. The well selected remedy needs no allopathic adjuvant. Believes similia to be a universal law of nature; if true in one case, true in all. Hempel, Hughes, Hale, Dake, Holcombe. The deductive philosophy of Aristotle. The misleading deductive method of Galen. Selecting the remedy from the pathology of the case; the theory of the pathological action of the drug. Generalization. Alternation of remedies. Prescribes for diphtheria, pneumonia, ague, cancer. In incurable cases give morphine, Dover's powder, chloral hydrate as palliatives. Nothing in Homœopathy to prevent doing the best he can to relieve his patient: even the best Allopathy can produce. Believes similia is not a universal law, only a therapeutic method. Dr. Skinner, we venture to say, did not look for a symptom of apoplexy when he prescribed for that patient. It was the symptoms of the patient which called for, and for which he prescribed Lycopodium, and this remedy would have relieved the patient of the train of symptoms he presented if Lauder Brunton or any other allopath had diagnosed the disease dyspepsia. Dr. Dunham relates a case in which Hahnemann cured a patient of condylomata with Chamomilla, and the late Dr. Gallupe cured a pneumonia with Podophyllum. In both of these cases the diagnosis has been disputed, but as they prescribed for the symptoms presented and cured the patients, that matters little. Allopathy always disputes the diagnosis when an incurable disease is cured; some Homoeopaths are short-sighted enough to follow the unmanly example. The cm. potency may be "irritational and absurd," but the same may be said of the thirtieth, the third or even the law of cure itself. That we think it "absurd or irrational" does not justify us in denying a cure or declining to put a therapeutic fact to the test at the bedside. Put the cm. potency to the same test as you have the third and thirtieth, as Dr. Skinner did when an Allopath, and publish the failures to the world. Is it wise or just or scientific to deny a fact in therapeutics, because we have never put it to the test and consequently know nothing about it. It is true that Hahnemann did so write to Schreter, but in 1833 he used the 50th, 60th, 150th and 300th potencies. But first, this is a question of selection not of potency. Potency is not and should not be the dividing line. The members of the I. H. A. did not form an association because of the potency question, but because they preferred to adhere to the Homoeopathy of Hahnemann, Hering and Dunham. So far as they are concerned they have done and could still do very good work with the 30th centesimal of Hahnemann, but neither members of the I. H. A. nor any one else could successfully use the 30th when prescribed on a pathological basis for diphtheria, pneumonia or croup. The sooner this question is thoroughly understood the better for the school individually and collectively. There may be some doubt about who has "strayed from the beaten path." COOK COUNTY HOSPITAL, CHICAGO.-The Medical Record is again in trouble. In its issue of Sept. 3, it says: The annual reports of the Cook County Hospital reveal some facts in which the profession should feel some interest. On the opening pages we find a list of the "regular medical board," and below of the "homeopathic medical board." Such juxtaposition seems a little at variance with conventional ethics, but in this we may be mistaken. * * * * * * * The point that is of real importance is, that both in its totals and in its medical and surgical departments the mortality of patients treated by the homeopathic medical board is less than that of the regular board. And this is true not for one year, but apparently for a series of years, **** It is possible that the cases sent to the homoeopathic side are of the less severe and acute char acter. Unless some such explanation as this exists, the reproach upon the skill of the regular medical staff is a severe one. Hospital statistics are extremely fallacious things, to be sure, and no inferences should be drawn from them without careful examination. But in the Cook County Hospital such examination seems demanded. The mortality on the allopathic side of the hospital is eight per cent. and only seven per cent. on the homœopathic side. This is a difference of one per cent. in favor of Homœopathy, a very meagre showing indeed. The insinuation of the Record that "the homoeopathic cases are less severe and acute" is unworthy its character for honest dealing, for all cases are assigned by an Allopathic physician in this proportion: every fourth medical and fifth surgical case entering the hospital go to the homoeopathic wards. But the Record need not go to Illinois for mortality statistics of this kind. If it will compare the percentages of Ward's Island with the other New York hospitals, or Middletown Asylum, with the other asylums of the State, it will find a much lower per cent. in favor of Homœopathy. The homoeopathic staff in Cook County Hospital can and must do better work in the future. The use of the single remedy and less allopathic palliatives will reduce the record wonderfully. OUR EXCHANGES. THE Exchange Editor has been neither dead nor sleeping, but very busy in other departments of the ADVANCE, * The Medical Visitor (August) has a readable paper by Dr. J. B. S. King on "Bile and Blood in the Urine." But the best effort of this same writer appears in the following: A Recent Graduate, who had but recently ceased to manipulate the Plow, was basking in abundant Leisure, when he was accosted by a Lacerated Uterus. "Are you a Doctor?" asked the Uterus. Yes," replied the Recent Graduate, "let me sew you up." "Hands off!" exclaimed the Lacerated Uterus, holding up her Fallopian Tubes in horror. I have been sewed up too much already, and what I come here for is to know why you doctors can't let me alone. Once I was young and handsome (here the Lacerated Uterus sighed so loudly that the Recent Graduate murmured Physometra,') but a long course of Local Treatment, injections, swabbings, applications and operations have left me in this disfigured condition. Why are all the ills of humanity heaped upon my neck?" continued the Uterus, wiping her |