Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 436, 27 December 1861, Page 3

Correspondence.

Sia —As your readers may desire advantage by the perusal of the following letter on Homoeopathy from the pen of Sir Benjamin Brodie, published in Fraser s ■ Magazine for September, 1861, I trust you will insert it in an early edition of your paper. I am, &c, COMMON SENSE. December 7th, 1861. Dear Sir—You desive me to Rive you my opinion of what is called Homoeopathy. I can do so without any great labor to myself, and without making any exorbitant demand on your patience, as the whole question really lies within a very small compass, and what I have to say on it may be expressed in very few words. The subject may be viewed under different aspects. We may enquire, first, whether Homoeopathy be, of "itselr", of any value, or of no value at all? secondly, in what manner does it affect general society?"and, thirdly, in what reladoes it stand to the'medical profession? I must first request you to observe that, whatever 1 may think at present, I had originally no prejudice either in favor of or against ibis new system , nor do I believ« that the members of the medical profession generally, were in the first instance influenced by any feelings of this kind. The fact is, that the fault of the profession, for the , most part, lies in the-opposite direction. They j are too much inclined to adopt any new theory or any new mode of treatment that may have been proposed ; the younger and more inexperienced among them especially erring in this respect, and too frequently indulging themselves in the trial of novelties, disregarding old and established remedies. For myself, I assure you that, whatever opinion I may now hold it has not been hastily formed. I have made myself sufficiently acquainted with several works which profess to disclose the mysteries of Homoeopathy, especially that of Hahnemaun, the founder of the Homoeopathic sect, and those of Dr. Curie and Mr. Sliaipc. The result is, that, with all the pains I have been able to take, I have been unable to form any very distinct notion of the system which they profess to teach. They all indeed begin with laying down, as the foundation of it, the rule that 'similia similibus curantur,' or, in plain English, that, one disease is to he driven out of the body by artificially creating another disease similar to it. But there the resemblance ends. Hahnemaun treats the subject in one way, Dp, Curie in another, and Mr. Sharpe in another way still. General principles are asserted on the.evidence of the most doubtful and scanty facts; and the reasoning on them, for the most part, is thoroughly puerile and illogical. Ido not ask you to take all this for granted, but would rather refer you to the books themselves; being satisfied that any one, though he may not be versed in the science of medicine, who possses good sense, and who has any knowledge of the'caution with which all scientific investigations should be conducted, will arrive at the same conclusions as myself.

But, subordinate to the rule to which I have just referred, there is another, which, hy some of the homoeopathic writers, is held to be of great importance, and which is certainly the more remarkable one of the two. The doses of medicine

administered by ordinary practitioners are repre- ' Bented to be much too large. It is unsafe to have ' recourse to them, unless reduced to an almost infiuitesmal point; not only to the millionth, l>ut sometime?| even to the billionth of a grain. Now observe what this means. Supposing one drop of liquid medicine to be equivalent to one grain, then in order to obtain the millionth part of that dose, you must dissolve that drop in thirteen gallons of water, and administer only one drop of that solution ; while, iv order to obtain the billionth of a grain, you must dissolve the aforesaid drop in 217,014 hogsheads of water. Of course, it 13 plain that this could not practicably be accomplished except by successive dilutions, and this would be a very, troublesome process. Whether it be at all probable that any one ever undertook to cany it out, I leave you to judge. At any rate, I conceive that there is uo reasonable person who would not regard the exhibition in so diluted a form as being equivalent to no treatment at all. • But, however, this may be, I may be met with .'the assertion that there is undoubted evidence that

a great number of persons recover from their complaints under homoeopathic treatment, and I do .not pretend in the least degree to deny it. In a discourse delivered by my suit to the students of Sf. George's Hospital, in the the year 1888, I find the following remarks :— * There is another inquiry which should always be made before you deter-

mine on the adoption of a particular method-of treatment: what will happen in this case if no remedies whatever be employed, if the patient be left altogether to nature or lo the efforts of his own constitution? * * * * The animal eysteni U not like a clock or a steam-engine, which,

being broken, you must semi to the clockmaker or engineer to mend it: and which cannot be repaired otherwise. The living machine, unlike the works of human invention, has the power of repairing itself; it contains within itself its own engineer, who, for the most part, requires no more than some very slight assistance at our hands.' Tina

truth admits, indeed, of a very large application. If the arts of medicine and surgery had never been

invented, by far the greater number of those who suffer from bodily illness, would have recovered nevertheless. An experienced and judicious medical practitioner knows this very well, and considers it to be his duty, in the great majority of cases, not so: much to interfere by any active treatment, as to.take care that nothing should obstruct the natural process of recovery, and to wateb lest, in the progress of the case, any new circumstance should aiise which would make his active interference necessary. If any,one were to engage in practice, giving his patient nothing but a little distilled water, and enjoining a careful diet and a

prudent mode of life otherwise, a.certain number of his patients would perish for the want of further help, but more would recover; and homoeopatic globules are, I doubt not, quite as good as distilled water. But this does not account for all the success of homoeopathy. In this country there is a large proportion-of individuals :who have plenty of money, combined with a great lack of employment ; and'it is astonishing to what an extent such persons contrive to imagine diseases for themselves.

There is no animal machine so ■perfect that there may not at times be some creaking in it. Want of exercise, irregularity as to diet, a little worry of mind—these, and a thousand other causes, may occasion weary feelings, to which constant attention and thinking of them will give a reality which they would not have had otherwise; and such feelings will disappear as well under the use of globules as they would under any other mode of treatment, or under no treatment at all. What I have now mentioned will go far towards explaining the success of homoeopathy. But other circumstances occur every now and then, from which, when they do occur, it profits to a 9till greater extent. Ilumanum est errare. From the operation of this universal law medical practitioners are not exempt, any more than statesmen, divines, lawyers, engineers, or any other profession. There are cases in which there is a greater chance of too much than too little being done for the patient; and if a patient under such ci cumstance becomes the subject of homoeopathic treatment, this being no treatment at all, he actually derives benefit from the change. [We will conclude this letter in our next issue.]