Pure Homeopathy, Progressive Homeopathy and the True Homeopathician
Daniel W. Clausen, M. D.
Followed by An unexpected Letter from Dr. Adolph Lippe
Commentaries by Dr. André Saine
Read before the Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society, at Syracuse, N. Y., June 15th, 1882
The word homeopathy has but one literal signification, but, unfortunately, that signification does not restrict the word to its legitimate use. It is very much like the word Christian, which today means quite a different thing to what it meant when the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Indeed, one can hardly fail to see the striking similarity between the word homeopathy and the parable of the grain of mustard seed, which, as our Lord said in his comparison, "Though it be the smallest of all seeds, groweth to a large tree, so that the fowls of the air come and lodge in the brunches thereof."
Homeopathy, the small seed sown in Germany nearly a century ago is today a large tree; and under the cover of its branches are illegally lodged a great many birds of foreign flight, whose feathers, indeed beautiful in outward appearance, yet retain their tincture hues of yellow, red, and blue; while the cross-breeds are ad infinitum; and there is that imperious-looking rooster that seems to proclaim with every flap of his-wings, "Liberty of action," and with every crow, "Freedom of opinion." (2)
Even a kid (Kidd) (3) has been known to climb this tree, besmearing its tender branches with an innumerable quantity of his Pilulae capricorni (goat pills) (4) and disturbing the quietus of the peaceful doves with his most terrific "bah!"
One "Browne" (Dyce) once hung his clothes on the tree, and attempting to wish in the sparkling stream that nourishes the tree, found the water too deep for him, poor fellow! and so he nearly got drowned, like his namesake of the firm—"Smith, Brown, Jones and Robinson"—of ancient story. His full recovery is doubtful.
But, with all the trespasses of these illegitimate refugees, besides exposure to frequent showers of hail (Hale) from the northwest, the tree with all its foliage bears still the original impress imparted to it by the germ. Nothing can alter her truth fullness and faithfulness to nature; nor is even he that hews (Hughes) able to destroy it with his ax, though he is considered a power in the field (of pharmacodynamics).
The various meanings applied to the word homeopathy today make the title decidedly Hibernian in character, as Dr. Skinner would say; for it used to mean: (1) Truth, (2) Error, and (3), what is worse, the harmonious co-existence of Truth and Error. This is hardly admissible in an age like the present, when people profess to be so much wiser than they who lived in the age of the philosopher's stone.
Consequently, for the sake of distinction, the word homeopathy as understood by true homeopathicians, requires the use of an adjective, which is best met by the word pure. The adjective "legitimate" may apply simply to the strict observance of the law of the similars, without necessarily including in its signification all or any of the purities that pertain to genuine homeopathic practice, such as the potency, dose, repetition, and a thousand other niceties.
Among those who have done most to corrupt the doctrine of pure homeopathy are, notably, E. M. Hale, M. D., of Chicago, and Richard Hughes, M, D., L. H. C. P., of England, who, concerning the truth, have erred; whose attempts to convert homeopathy into eclecticism and to adorn it with the brass-gold buttons of a physiological and pathological livery (5) have by their respective works ruined a multitude of medical students, students who started with the honest intention of studying pure homeopathy, but have been unfortunately caught in the snares and delusions of these eclectic and "pharmacodynamic" teachers. (6)
Pure homeopathy admits of no such thing as "the pathological sphere of action" of such or such a remedy. If we could say such is the pathological sphere of action of this or that drug, our materia medica would lose its vast comprehensiveness and its study be reduced to mere child's play. But a remedy is limited to no "pathological sphere of action;" far from it, the immense variety of phenomena presented in its symptomatology renders it applicable to an almost equal variety of diseases whose respective "spheres of action" are totally different, and it is applicable in each of these diseases, just as any of these various phenomena (symptoms) in the sick furnish indications for its use.
Belladonna is as much homeopathic to some cases of uterine disease as it was to the old Sydenham scarlatina. And where is the harmonious link in the pathology of the two diseases? Do they come within one "pathological sphere"? —are they of one family? Nay; but if any form of disease never before seen were to appear, the wide spheres of action of our remedies—not limited to any special "pathological spheres"—would render them applicable to such disease. Moreover, if a remedy were limited to any "pathological sphere of action," the ever-varying, ever-changing forms of disease would, in course of time, render the remedy comparatively, if not altogether, useless; instead of that, our oldest remedies are the indispensables of today.
Why will professors in "homeopathic" medical colleges so persistently endeavor to teach that a system of therapeutics, even of homeopathy, must be based upon knowledge of pathological changes? Such teaching is a departure from the true faith, and is neither more nor less than going back to the ante-Hahnemannian ages of darkness and blind ignorance. "A fatal error," as our much-loved Dr. Lippe would say.
Supposing even it were always possible for us to know what was going on in the hidden interior of man, this would not help us one mite as regards therapeutics. Pathological changes and processes are not disease, but result from disease, i.e., from "a dynamic alteration of the vital force." As one, in a certain place, has truly said: "Living manifestations of disease are exact expressions of their internal nature, and organic lesions are consecutive results of the primary morbid activity of the vital force." And what do we understand by "living manifestations of disease"? For these we have not to go to the cadaver, nor do we understand them to be fully expressed by any visible pathological changes on the living subject, but they present themselves to us in a variety of phenomena called symptoms, speaking with the voice of nature; hence, "living manifestations"—physiologically alive—the expressions of perverted physiological functions not yet dead—not in the "dead house."
The consecutive results of the primary morbid activity of the vital force are only dead manifestations. Hence it is that we get such excellent and wonderful results when we apply the dynamized—spiritualized—medicinal agent in harmony with the "living manifestations."
How naturally vast, then, must be the difference between treatment according to the deductions drawn from "dead-house pathology," and that according to the indications furnished by "living manifestations!" Oh! what a great and luxuriant tree is this tree of homeopathy!—a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations; a tree that is not withered by the influences of autumn nor blighted by the cold blasts of winter, but has a perpetual existence, being watered with the refreshing dews of progressive homeopathy from the hands of those noble veterans whose images stand depicted in the crystal drops as they lie clustered on every leaf.
Pathological changes are always preceded by symptoms of the disease; hence, it is necessary to prove our remedies only to the extent of eliciting certain characteristic symptoms, never to the extent of producing pathological changes—a statement that is substantiated by the fact that the remedies do cure pathological changes when selected according to symptomatic indications. I do not believe that Aurum was proved to the extent of producing caries of the palatine bones; and, certainly, Belladonna never produced the scarlatina.
When the late Dr. Carroll Dunham cured an ovarian tumor with Colocynthis 200 D< a href="#c7" class="ref red">(7) he did not select his remedy as one that had ever been known to produce or to cure that pathological condition; he never thought of the disease by name; he endeavored to cure his patient by considering his patient's constitutional symptoms; and when the patient was cured the tumor disappeared, because it could not exist in a healthy organism. It was on the same principle that Hahnemann once cured a case of fig-warts with Chamomilla 30 C. (8) Latter-day homeopathy would teach to look for the rubric "fig-warts," and the prescriber, prescribing, of course, for the disease (i.e., for the name) and not for the patient, would be confined to a choice between two or three remedies, and so—fail to cure.
Latter-day homeopathy teaches to treat "worms" as a disease, and so to follow the careless routine of administering anthelmintics to every subject supposed to be infested with these parasites; and because the doctor is told that "lots of worms" have been passed he fondly prides himself in the imagination that his patient is cured, receiving a full share of commendation from all the old women who happen to catch a glimpse of the vessel. But, after all, it may be that these worm-doctors evince a fair degree of acumen in trying to become popular among the women; for it is a remarkable fact that you cannot please certain women better than to make them believe that you are going to expel from them a worm, or a snake or a tumor, or some other imaginary incumbrance.
And right here I am reminded of a case in point, which occurred at a medical college while I was there attending a course of lectures. At the gynecological clinic there came a woman one day suffering from some uterine disorder, and, in addition to various phases of nervous mimicry, she fancied that she had a snake within her. The professor, a fairly keen gentleman, did not, of course, try to disabuse her of her belief, but aimed at the uterine trouble, resorting to his usual mode of treatment, which included the insertion of the tampon, or plug of cotton, well lubricated with Vaseline and having a string attached for the purpose of withdrawal. She did not, however, know what was being done to her. In a day or two she called at the doctor's office, and, with concurrent expressions of great joy and absolute certainty, she exclaimed: "Hah, hah! Doctor! I've got it! I've got it!" when the doctor, in his calm self-possession, simply asked, "Got what, ma'am?" "Why," said she, "that snake! Now, Doctor, I told you so; I knew it; and I here it is" (handing him a neat-looking paper parcel). My readers must not be surprised to learn that the contents of the parcel proved to be the same old plug of cotton inserted at the clinic, which, with the vaseline on it, and the superadded viscid secretion covering it and the string all over, had, in truth, much the appearance of a member of the reptilian fraternity. The doctor, as wise and self-possessed as ever, said nothing to thwart her gratification, but allowed her free indulgence in that conceit which is said to be sometimes as efficacious in curing as it is frequently in killing.
The true homeopathician on examining a case for treatment takes into account every symptom—objective and subjective—not only such symptoms as seem to be in immediate connection with the special ailment he is called upon to treat, but even the most apparently remote—the entire constitution. He underlines those which are the most characteristic of the patient's suffering—those to which the patient gives most prominence in relating his or her ailment, and those which are most noticeable by the physician. Symptoms that are common to a very large number of remedies, such as constipation, etc., he does not regard as very characteristic, except as they may be characterized by some peculiarity, for instance, "stools crumbling at the verge of the anus," "stools which recede after having been partially expelled," etc. If the symptoms be equally divided among two or more remedies, one remedy having only a part and another remedy the remainder, preference must be given to that remedy which contains the most characteristic symptom of the case. If the most characteristic symptoms seem to be equally divided among, and equally characteristic of, two or more remedies, then some other symptoms or symptom—sometimes an apparently very remote or insignificant one—must be sought for in the pathogenesis of the respective remedies. This explains the expediency of taking the totality of the symptoms before deciding on the choice.
Particular attention should also be paid to the time, as well as to all the conditions of aggravation and amelioration.
But as there are no two cases of sickness exactly alike in their most comprehensive semiology, so it will never—hardly ever—be found that any two medicines will be exactly alike in their respective fall pathogeneses. There most be one remedy alone whose symptomatology most closely corresponds to a given case of sickness at the time of examination, and the knowledge essential to this discrimination—which, by the way, ignores the unjustifiable practice of alternation—is to be gained only by a diligent and thorough study of the materia medica.
The mode of examining the patient for all the symptoms is of no less importance, as taught in Hahnemann's Organon of the Healing Art—sine qua non.
After the exhibition of a remedy that is homeopathic to a given case, it is not uncommon to find that symptoms in the case which were not observed in the pathogenesis of the drug also disappear, leaving the patient well. These latter symptoms are properly incorporated in our materia medica, not only because they have been cured, but also because of the possibility of their development in a more extensive drug-proving. So far it is interesting well as instructive to closely watch and verify the actions of our remedies, even our most extensively—and best—proven ones; not, however, with the vain speculations of the Milwaukee philosophers, (9) who tried to prove, (or rather to disprove) the well-authenticated virtues of our orthodox Aconite.
On the other hand, it frequently happens that when a homeopathic remedy is applied, other symptoms which belong to the pathogenesis of the drug arise in the patient. This is more especially the case when the remedy has been administered in a high degree of attenuation.
Guiding symptoms, characteristics, and keynotes can never be substituted for the materia medica in full; but they serve the grand purpose of guiding us in the right direction. Indeed, it is presumable that the learned veterans who have given us these resumes have intended them as guides to the study of materia medica rather than synopses for full decision.
Nor is a keynote of a remedy limited to any particular disease or class of diseases, any more than one keynote on a musical instrument is limited to one tune. A keynote of a medicine may indicate its use in a vast variety of diseases, just as one musical note may be the keynote of a vast number of melodies.
For all these grand truths—so precious to the homeopathician—we are indebted not only to the immortally honorable and honored men who laid the foundation, constructed, and bequeathed to us the great temple of homeopathy, but also to the honored and faithful men who now live and devote their energies to the increase of the superstructure, beautifying it, adorning it, and casting their gifts into the treasury of the temple. Accordingly, we have a homeopathy that is progressive (not latter-day homeopathy; for this term has reference to a homeopathic temple whose foundation has been laid in latter days).
Progressive homeopathy has corroborated and developed some very important facts in relation to analogy, which offers itself for application, according to the following aspects:
Analogy, by symptoms which in point of location, character, appearance, conditions, time, and order, agree with those in the proving.
Analogy, by similar pains and sensations, although occurring in locations different from those affected in the provers. (Of the many cases proving this we may cite, as a single illustration, the constrictive, grasping sensation around the heart, found in Cactus grandiflorus; which sensation, when felt in other parts of the body, has been removed by applying the same remedy after this phase of similarity.)
Analogy, by similar appearances of totally different pathological conditions. (Example: Lac caninum, a remedy discarded by the ignorant, is useful in syphilitic ulcers on the penis when there are present the smooth, shining, and other appearances which indicate the use of Lac caninum in diphtheria.)
Analogy, by conditions which alike influence totally different symptoms. (Example: Boenninghausen records a case characterized by a thick coating of mucus which persistently gathered on the teeth of a patient and became invariably aggravated every time he shaved; cured by Carbo animalis 30, the only remedy in whose proving was found that condition of aggravation, and that, too, in connection with a totally different symptom. To this might be added many more examples of analogy by conditions.)
Analogy, in regard to time of aggravation and amelioration. (We all know the value of the morning aggravations of Nux vomica, the 2 to 4 A.M. aggravation of Kali carbonicum, the 4 to 8 P.M. aggravation of Lycopodium, the 5 A.M. "double quick" of Sulphur, etc.; for experience has taught us that these times of aggravation and amelioration are often reliable indications where they govern symptoms in the sick that are entirely different from the symptoms which furnish these indications in the proving.)
But in whatever direction we are looking for the similar remedy—whether in the direction of pain, of location, of time, or of any other aspect of analogy—we must not forget that each of these is but a direction or guide to the materia medica, and that we could no more expect to harmonize physiological discrepancies, by depending on a single keynote without the totality of symptoms, than we could to harmonize the monotonous repetitions of n single keynote in music without playing on the other notes of the scale.
Let us fondly cherish these deductions from pure and progressive homeopathy. Let the living great of our noble art continue to furnish us with their experiences, and let those of us who are young in the faith be diligent—diligent not only in learning what we don't yet know, but also in giving our hearty co-operation to the senior workers for the furtherance of a homeopathy that is pure, unadulterated, and progressive, that we also may, like them, be in the enjoyment of a rich experience that shall redound to the glory of homeopathy and to the benefit of suffering humanity.
For my own part, I may say that my ignorance is fully realized when I ponder the immensity of unacquired knowledge. Like Newton—
"I feel myself playing with shells on the shore.
While the vast ocean lies before me unexplored."
But we hope never to faint or be weary in the path of glory and duty; we feel encouraged by the veterans of our noble cause; we are still listening to the voice of Samuel Hahnemann, who "being dead, yet spoke." He, who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Auburn, N. Y., June 5th, 1882.
AN UNEXPECTED LETTER
Received from Dr. Ad. Lippe of Philadelphia, Pa
No. 1204 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa., Thanksgiving Day, November 30th, 1882
D. W. Clausen, M.D.,
My Dear Sir:
It is late in the day—it is almost past and gone. I have just read your most excellent paper on Pure Homeopathy you read at Syracuse June 15th, and I can no better end this day than by saying:
Thanks to you for the truths you have so plainly laid before the profession. The great tree from the seed Hahnemann planted is still growing and is now watered by our former opponents who honestly admit that, according to their scientific investigations, the diminution of the material medicinal substances surely and progressively increases their power to disturb the feelings and sensations of the animal organism. Modern science comes to our assistance and confirms the observations made by that great philosopher, Hahnemann.
That other tree planted at Chicago, now in his thirteenth year, planted when a disloyal mob if hypocrites shouted themselves hoarse over the proclamation of "Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action" had also brought forth its fruits. (10)
It was through the kindness of your ever-loyal Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society that I was enabled to publish any individual protest against this proclamation in a paper on Liberty of Medical Opinion and Action. The last rotten fruit that came from that tree, came in the shape of that infamous last resolution passed just before the lat meeting of the Institute adjourned. The resolution and its originators have been severely exposed and punished by some of the Old Guard; (11) but the father of it shows in his lamentably illogical, lame, insolent defense in the Hahnemannian Monthly, that he feels himself perfectly secure among his friends, the Institute Ringsters. (12)
The two trees cannot grow up together—cannot exist together in the same forest; they are antagonistical plants—as antagonistic as are truth and falsehood.
That "Freedom" tree will be uprooted before long. The Freedomites are in our school what the Communists are in the Republic; they will be suppressed. Hahnemann is the father of the Republic in the Medical Art; the Freedom bird, the Communist, cannot live among us—he must and will be squelched. You have given him a severe blow—a bit from the shoulder joint. When I am done with some of our erring brethren in our own societies, you will find me going again for the scalp of Richard Hughes.
Would it not be the correct thing if your Society did pass some strong resolutions protesting against the Freedom resolutions passed by the Institute? The position your Society has expressly taken in your last resolution touching the consultation-recognition question, is admirable. (13)
Yours Very Truly,
Comments by André Saine
› Return to the website
- The Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society was one of the rare homeopathic medical association that was consistently dedicated to pure homeopathy. Many of its members were regarded as great physicians. These include E. B. Nash, Joseph Biegler, L. B. Wells, Julius Schmitt, W. Hawley, etc. Many papers of Lippe and Kent were read before this society.
Back in the article
Clausen is referring here to the address Carroll Dunham made before the American Institute of Homeopathy in June 1870 in Chicago and entitled Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and Great Responsibility. Dunham was suggesting that the AIH should strike out the word homeopathy from its membership requirement and thereby open its door to full membership to anyone professing a medical diploma. Dunham pleaded "for liberty; for I am sure that perfect liberty will the sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire." He wanted the AIH "to be an open forum where truth shall be so distinctively proclaimed, and so persuadably enforced that error shall have no chance." He didn't want discrimination, as he said, "Nor do I know of any effective way to combat error, save by proclaiming truth." The following September, Lippe was replying to Dunham's suggestion with in address that was read before the Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society and entitled Liberty of Medical Opinion and Action. Both papers are of great historical importance for determining the fate of homeopathy.
Back in the article
"Kidd" is for Joseph Kidd from Ireland and in the next two paragraphs you will find innuendos about Dyce Brown, Edwin Hale and Richard Hughes. All four were well-known for insisting to call homeopathy their teaching and practice of eclecticism.
Back in the article
Back in the article
Back in the article
Today we have an entire generation of students that is being wasted and deluded by the fantasies of the sirens and gurus of speculative medicine.
Back in the article
You can read this very interesting case of Dunham on page 485 of his excellent posthumous book, Homoeopathy, The Science of Therapeutics. It is interesting to note that he used his famous 200 D potency which was repeated every hour with each paroxysm of pain and the patient kept repeating the remedy in this potency for at least four months.
Back in the article
On this point, Holmes wrote in the 1901 IHA transactions page 257: "This brings me back to the point of again emphasizing the importance of searching for the simillimum and not for the remedy based on the diagnosis or applied for a single feature of the disease. Franz Hartmann, while a member of Hahnemann's household saw the great master prescribe for a case of fig-warts and asked what remedy was given. Hahnemann told him to take the record and search the materia medica. This was not satisfactory and when, at the end of a month, the patient returned without a trace of the warts, Hartmann could contain himself no longer. He went to the study early in the morning before Hahnemann came in and opened the case book. The prescription was Chamomilla 30, three powders and placebo. He confessed his sin to Hahnemann and urged him to tell why he had given Chamomilla for fig-warts. "Ah, have you done that?" said Hahnemann; "then take the book and read further, read the Symptomen-codex and see if it were possible to give any other remedy than Chamomilla, when such symptoms were present." And Hartmann was satisfied.Oh, my brethren of too little faith! Would that I could gather you into my arms and have some "heart to heart talks" with you over the great works of our masters in comparison with the eclectic, guess-work, irregular methods so prevalent in our school."
Back in the article
Milwaukee philosophers refers to a group of physicians who, around 1879, tried to disprove potentiation process of homeopathy.
Back in the article
Again, Lippe is referring to the 1870 address by Carroll Dunham before the American Institute of Homeopathy.
Back in the article
I found responses from Lippe, P. P. Wells, T. F. Pomeroy and E. J. Lee.
Back in the article
Lippe is referring to the resolution proposed in the very last minutes of the 1882 annual meeting of the American Institute of Homeopathy by Pemberton Dudley who was also one of the editors of the Hahnemannian Monthly, which said, "Resolved, that it is the sense of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, that no physician can properly sustain the responsibilities, or fulfill all the duties of his professional relations, unless he enjoys absolute freedom of medical opinion, and unrestricted liberty of professional action, as provided for the Code of Ethics of the Institute." The resolution was adopted with one dissenting vote. It is interesting to note that the "essential purposes" for the foundation of the American Institute of Homoeopathy in 1844 was : "1st. The reformation and augmentation of the materia medica. 2d. The restraining of physicians from pretending to be competent to practice homeopathy who have not studied it in a careful and skilful manner." However, when the official constitution the AIH was adopted in 1846 it stated, "The object of this Institution shall be the improvement of the science of medicine." This was a major change of focus which would greatly affect its philosophy and fate.
One or two months before writing this letter, Lippe wrote an article in which he commented on this resolution. He wrote, "What can this resolution really mean? As we became a member of the Institute at its second meeting, we may be supposed to know the aims of that Society. Then all the members held it to be incumbent upon its members to practice homeopathy, as promulgated by its founder. We united to develop our knowledge by augmentations to our materia medica, that we might the better apply the only law of cure known to the healing-art. We enjoyed then, as now, absolute freedom of medical opinion; no law of this free land could prevent any one from either joining or leaving the Institute, provided he was, when he joined it, possessed of the requisite knowledge of medicine, and especially of homeopathy. He could, if he found the healing-art called homeopathy inadequate, when he tried to properly sustain the responsibilities or fulfill all the duties of his professional relations, leave the Institute at pleasure, all of which covered the unrestricted liberty of professional action. If such was the true meaning of this resolution, it was obviously unnecessary to offer or to pass it.
"What can this resolution really mean? The learned compiler of so much, almost incomprehensible bombast, now kindly tells us what he did really mean—vide Hahnemannian Monthly, Sept. 1st, 1882, p. 560, and there and then he enlightens us thus: 'Before the resolution was offered it was shown to several members of the Institute, each and all of whom at once understood it to refer to the question which now divides and distracts the allopathic denomination, viz.: the consultation question!'
"What a revelation this is! For the sake of everything appertaining to language, we cannot see a syllable in this resolution touching either the question of consultation or recognition, nor are we aware of any—even the slightest—attempt made in behalf of the Institute forbidding any such consultations! Besides all this, the allopaths have very wisely settled the distracting question, and we have nothing to do with it. As the resolution has nothing whatever to do with 'consultations,' and as we must take it for granted that the chosen few members of the Institute did see said resolution 'after dinner,' we may now be permitted to put our own interpretation on this strange language. The gentleman who offered said resolution once delivered himself of this remark before the Philadelphia Homoeopathic Medical Society—'I have a weakness for quinine; if I could get along without quinine, as some claim to do, I could get along without homeopathy altogether,' which might be put into more explicit language—'Homeopathy teaches the administration of quinine in massive doses for the cure of intermittent fever, as I understand it, and those who claim to get along without it are not homeopaths, as I understand it. No such homeopathy without quinine for me.'
"As homeopathy is an exclusive system of therapeutics, as it teaches that all dynamic and all curable, not surgical, cases of disease (even if caused by mechanical injuries) are amenable under the law of the similars, excluding necessarily the palliative treatment of the allopathic school, and as it is evident this is not palatable to a learned gentleman who seems not to know that homeopathy always rejected the ever pernicious use of crude drugs, quinine included, this resolution means nothing more or less than this: 'I am a homeopath, but claim absolute freedom of medical opinion and unrestricted liberty of professional action—i. e., to give crude doses of quinine and morphia myself whenever I please, and express this my opinion freely without restriction.'
"These are the prerogatives of the eclectics. As a logical sequence, the next resolution offered the Institute should read: 'Whereas, the fatal error was committed of passing the above resolution last year, at the close of the session, we now apply the ' proper' remedy, and strike out from the title of our Association, founded by the early pioneers, the name homeopathy, and insert in the place of it—eclecticism.' That is the true inwardness of said resolution.
Back in the article
The resolution Lippe is referring to was presented by the Committee appointed at the previous meeting on consultation with non-homeopaths. The report read as follow, "Your Committee find that the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Homeopathy, adopted by this Society, contains all that can be desired on this subject, giving, as it does, to every member of the profession, without dispute, the right to his individual opinion, and to advise with any duly qualified physician, demanding only a legal status in the profession and such courteous treatment of each other as one gentleman would always give another.
"They further find that the New York State Medical Society has recently placed its Code on the same basis of freedom and gentlemanly courtesy; and that out of this action of that meeting has grown up a discussion among the members of the Old School, which has become so general as to attract public attention and is producing in some degree the impression that the homeopathic profession has sought, and is still seeking, such a change in the Code of the Old School. They find also, as a further basis of this impression, that there is a somewhat numerous class of eclectics, who, having crept into the various homeopathic societies, are so clamorous for recognition by the Old School that they are willing to drop our distinctive name, as they have already abandoned every principle of our school, whereby they bring upon the whole homeopathic fraternity the charge of professing one thing and practicing another.
"Your Committee further find that the sole difference between the Old School and the homeopathic profession is in the administration of drugs for the cure of the sick, the latter claiming to have the law of the curative relation of drugs to diseases, while the Old School deny that the law is known.
"Your Committee therefore offer and advise the adoption of the following preamble and resolution as expressing the sentiments of this Society: "Whereas, It is evident that the curative relation of drugs to diseases, if there is such relation, must, like all things else, lie governed by law, and the homeopathic profession has a knowledge of and is guided by that law, which law has no relation to pathology, diagnostics, prognostics, or practical surgery; therefore, "Resolved, That homeopathic physicians, abiding by their Code of Ethics, and giving gentlemanly courtesy to all legally qualified members of the medical profession, in the administration of drugs for the cure of the sick, neither need nor ask counsel of any who, ignorant of the law, are guided only by empirics, or, as they phrase it, "the accumulated experience of the profession."
Back in the article