Homeopathy
Rick Black

Keywords: Alternative Medicine, Hahnemann, Homeopathy, Law of Potentization, Law of Similars, Potentize, Tinctures, Vital Force, Simillimum

Abstract:

In the late 1700’s and early 1800’s Samuel Hahnemann developed a new medicinal technique that he named homeopathy. This new curative technique centered on two important premises. First, Hahnemann proposed that a vital life force maintained the human body and caused disease when it fell out of balance. Secondly, Hahnemann proposed that in order to realign the vital force, the sick person must take a drug that, when consumed large enough doses, would elicit the same symptoms as the sickness. This theory of "like curing like" met with great skepticism in Hahnemann’s time, primarily because it stood in such stark contrast to contemporary ideas about healing. Before Hahnemann, the predominant medicinal techniques were allopathic. Allopathic medicine heals using the premise that to cure a symptom, one must treat it with something different, or "other," as the word "allo" implies. Despite its allopathic detractors, however, homeopathy has withstood the tests of time and is practiced in the world today.

Scope and Purpose:

One must look no further than the very word "homeopathy" to find the truest essence of this medical technique. Derived from the two Greek words "homoios" and "pathos," the word literally means "like suffering." At the time of its development, this phrase and its suggestion that diseases could most effectively be treated by a drug that had the capacity to produce the same symptoms were revolutionary. In fact, homeopathic doctors prescribe drugs based on how closely large doses of a particular drug will emulate the symptoms that a particular patient is experiencing. Advocates of homeopathy believe that its healing power stems from a vital force that naturally sustains and regulates the human body. Proponents of homeopathic medicine believe that the vital force produces the symptoms in any given disease; thus, by prescribing a symptom-causing drug, homeopathists are stimulating the vital force to heal the body. Another homeopathic precept is that the smaller a dosage of medicine is, the greater its healing powers will be.

Doctors practice homeopathy all over the world, however, it has recently been gaining popularity in areas such as Europe, India, and the United Kingdom (Woodham 127). This is likely due, at least in part, to the growing trend toward holistic medical practices. Such practices, collectively termed alternative medicine, continue to expand in popularity due to the shortcomings of western medical techniques. Chronic diseases are an excellent example of a large domain of medicine that western medicine has not been able to conquer. Perhaps the reason for its lack of success is that western medicine tends to treat using a reductionism philosophy. A western medical practitioner treats the head for a headache, the stomach and intestines for indigestion, and the ear for an earache. This approach centers on the precept that disease afflicts parts of the body individually rather than the entire body. Homeopathy, on the other hand, does not adhere to the idea that disease localizes itself to one particular organ in the body. Instead, disease permeates the entire body and so the homeopath treats the entire person.

Authority Structure:

    1. Sources and Criteria of Valid Knowledge
The validity for homeopathy comes directly from its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, and his book, Organon of medicine. Many followers of homeopathic medicine view Hahnemann as a prophet since he claimed to bring the world a new healing knowledge that was both a more effective and a more humane method to cure disease. He professed to have discovered this new technique which he called homeopathy through experimentation, observation, and reflection. Hahnemann abhorred the violent and destructive medicinal techniques of his time. These contemporary practices included everything from bloodletting to amputation without anesthesia to vicious bodily purging. Such techniques, although thought to be helpful, often reduced to the patient to such a state of utter exhaustion that death was inevitable. When this occurred, the physician would nonchalantly blame the disease for the malevolent work of his own treatment. In Hahnemann’s thinking, almost without exception, the cure was far more detrimental and damaging than the affliction. Finally, God decided to stop the abominations of modern medicine; he allowed Hahnemann to found the true principles of medicinal healing. Subsequently, Hahnemann discovered that, "To cure mildly, rapidly, certainly, and permanently, choose in every case of disease, a medicine which can itself produce an affection similar to that sought to be cured" (Hahnemann 80).

The theory of the vital force is fundamental to the practice of homeopathy; one must accept the existence of this vital force to understand homeopathic treatment. There is no evidence as to where Hahnemann’s theory of the vital force originated; however, it is strongly reminiscent of the Chinese concept of "chi." In Chinese medicine, chi is the life force of the body and disease results when it is unbalanced in the body. To cure sickness, Chinese doctors must restore chi’s balance through herbal medicine, acupuncture, and massage. Whether or not the concept of chi influenced Hahnemann is largely irrelevant; what is important is how the vital force relates to homeopathic healing. Hahnemann says the following about the vital force:

"to effect an alteration in the instinctive, irrational and unintelligent, but automatic vital force, when it has been diverted by disease into abnormal action, and by means of a similar affection developed homeopathically chosen remedy, to excite in it a medicinal disease somewhat greater in degree, so that the natural morbid affection can no longer act upon the vital force, which thus, freed from natural disaster, has now only the similar somewhat stronger medicinal morbid affection to contend with" (Hahnemann 67). He describes the vital force as instinctive, irrational and unintelligent. Once it is out of balance, the force does not know how to correct itself, but it tries anyway. Thus, the ignorant vital force in its deranged state attempts to maintain the body and succeeds only in causing harmful symptoms. Hahnemann expresses that in order to cure a disease one must intervene and divert the power of the vital force from the natural affliction. One accomplishes this using a homeopathic remedy that produces a similar affection to the vital force. Once it focuses on the homeopathic drug rather than the natural illness, the vital force overcomes the drug. After this occurs, the vital force is then liberated and it can reestablish its balance and properly maintain the body.

B. Methods of Inquiry

Homeopathic medicine relies heavily on the virtues of its practicing doctors. These individuals must have the utmost skills of medical perception in order to properly prescribe an appropriate cure. Unlike allopathic doctors, homeopaths do not treat just the area of localized affliction. Furthermore, while allopathic doctors base their treatment only on the few symptoms that they feel are most pertinent to the disease, the homeopathic doctor considers all aspects of a patient’s life in order to provide clues to a proper treatment. While this includes all the observed physical symptoms attributed to the disease that the allopathic doctor would consider, it also includes such things as age, social relationships, diet, mood, past medical history, sexual activity, occupation, and moral character. Even a patient’s physical appearance may be useful in choosing what remedy is most appropriate. Only after a physician has considered everything about the person’s life is he able to prescribe a curative drug. Just one missed clue can cause failure, necessitating a reevaluation and a new treatment. This homeopathic curative process in which the patient is examined, treated, and then reexamined for improvement is very meticulous and scientific. It follows strict guidelines and adheres closely to homeopathic principles of medicine.

Although symptoms are imperative in diagnosis and proper treatment, one must not assume that a homeopath seeks only to cure the symptoms. In Organon of Medicine, Hahnemann states, "The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles" (Hahnemann 92). The homeopath’s goal is to restore health to a patient permanently and wholly. To a homeopath, a cure that merely masks the symptoms of a disease, but does not heal the patient, is medicinally worthless and even detrimental to the greater ideals of medicine. Homeopathy realizes that there is a distinct difference between being healthy and not showing symptoms of sickness. The homeopath’s goal is to eradicate the symptoms in addition to restoring health. If the patient becomes healthy, then this serves as proof that the homeopath’s knowledge was valid. In addition to being effective, the homeopath’s methods must produce results both quickly and tenderly. Thus, homeopaths do not use large doses of drugs, nor injurious techniques such as bloodletting like other medicinal practices. Although bloodletting is largely obsolete in contemporary medicine, there are several modern examples of injurious treatments to which homeopaths would object. For instance, chemotherapy in its treatment of cancer is a slow acting and produces severely debilitating side effects; it is certainly a modern day violation of the homeopathic doctrine.

    1. Institutions and Professional Structure
In the very first paragraph of Organon of Medicine, Hahnemann cautions all that, "the physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed" (Hahnemann 92). This is the standard, set by Hahnemann years ago, to which all homeopathic doctors must conform. They are healers and it is their profession to cure; yet, they must preserve health as well. Homeopaths receive formal training in homeopathic medical schools and upon completion receive their degree in homeopathic medicine. Regulations and control vary depending on the country in which the homeopath practices. In more developed countries such as America, the homeopath must obtain a license from the state that his practice is in. Interestingly, the American Medical Association refuses to recognize homeopathic medicine on the basis that homeopathy is not founded on scientifically sound principles. Thus, there are currently only three states, Arizona, Connecticut, and Nevada, which are willing to license a homeopathic doctor. In spite of this, a homeopath may receive licensing under another form of accepted medicine, such as acupuncture or osteopathic medicine; he or she can then practice homeopathy under that title (Marti 9). In third-world countries where doctors and medicine are in short supply, a homeopath can practice medicine without worrying about stringent guidelines. The high incidence of sickness and lack of adequate medical facilities that characterize underdeveloped countries like India results in an increased popularity for homeopathic medicine. In these areas, if the homeopath is a successful healer, then he or she will have patients.

History:

Although Samuel Hahnemann is the undisputed founder of homeopathy, the fundamental principles upon which homeopathy is based date back to the beginnings of medicine. The homeopathic maxim "like cures like" dates back to fifth century B.C. where Hypocrites, the father of medicine, invokes it in his medicinal texts. In this sense, Hypocrites provided the rudimentary concept that would later serve as the cornerstone for homeopathic philosophy. It was not until the early nineteenth century, more than two thousand years later that a German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann founded the system of homeopathic medicine. Hahnemann had once been a practitioner of contemporary medicine; however, he soon realized that he could not tolerate a medicinal system that condoned such pernicious treatments as bloodletting, purging, and blistering. Subsequently, he became a translator and writer of various scientific texts.

Through this new profession, Hahnemann became interested in the alleged fever-curing properties of chinchona bark, from which one can derive the drug quinine. Thereafter, he began experimentally treating himself with the drug quinine; the results were both shocking and intriguing. Quinine elicited symptoms that resembled those that it professedly cured. From these results, Hahnemann concluded that the drug was effective in curing fever because it could, in fact, cause fever. He substantiated this claim using the idea that the human body possesses a vital life force. This force was responsible for maintaining the body and would inevitably cause physical symptoms while trying to keep the body in balance. A drug like quinine had medicinal value because it was able to produce symptoms and thus divert the action of the vital force. The force then overpowered the drug and restored balance to the body.

The results of his first experiment involving quinine gave impetus to other experiments using different drugs in an attempt by Hahnemann to substantiate his conclusions. In each case, the curative drug seemed to cause the same symptoms that it treated; thus, the claim of like curing like gained credibility and an increasing number of doctors became willing to aid in the investigation of homeopathic therapies. This, in turn, allowed Hahnemann to launch an extensive systematic study as to what symptoms a drug would elicit. This then corresponded to the diseases that the drugs could successfully treat.

Another interesting aspect to Hahnemann’s research was that it seemed lesser quantities of a drug were more effective at alleviating symptoms than larger quantities were. Large quantities of medicine, in most cases, heightened the severity of the symptoms; patients had to get worse to get better. This realization led Hahnemann to formulate of the law of potentization which states that a drug becomes more and more effective as the dose in which it is taken becomes smaller and smaller. Although, this seems counterintuitive, Hahnemann continued to increase drug efficacy by increasing the dilution of his medicines. The original knowledge and precepts established through Hahnemann’s early experimentation continue to provide the foundation for modern day homeopathic treatments just as it did hundreds of years ago.

Representative Examples:

As one may suspect, many of the theories involved in the process of homeopathy evoke skepticism. The idea that the more a drug is diluted, the more potent it becomes is one example of a precept which has been subjected to much criticism especially in the contemporary world. If a doctor dilutes a drug to an infinitesimal concentration, as is standard practice for homeopathy, then it does not seem practical for such a minimal amount of actual medicine to produce healing. The logical investigator will wonder how a doctor can cure a disease when he is administering barely any medicine at all. In defense of this, homeopathy points to specific bodily functions, such as the action produced by hormones. Although hormones are present in extremely small quantities throughout the body, they are nevertheless extremely powerful at producing a distinct and biologically essential effect. For example, the hormone thyroxin, which is essential for a healthy metabolism, is produced by the thyroid gland everyday; however, it is produced in amounts on the order of fifty to one hundred millionths of a gram. Without these minuscule doses, however, the body cannot metabolize energy effectively (Monte 44).

Furthermore, consider modern techniques such as vaccination, which involves the stimulation of the body’s immune system using a weakened form of a disease. The body overcomes the crippled disease; thus acquiring immunity from future invasion by the same pathogen. This is a widely accepted practice in today’s medicine, and yet it is somewhat similar to the founding ideas of homeopathy (Hulke 114). Another example of modern day medication that buttresses homeopathic principles is the use of the drug Ritalin to treat the hyperactivity associated with attention deficit disorder (ADD). In a normal patient, methylphenidate, the active ingredient in Ritalin, acts as a stimulant of the nervous system and causes excitation. In an ADD patient, however, it enacts a calming effect.

Moreover, homeopathy gains credibility through the undeniable fact that, for particular people, with certain afflictions, it does have therapeutic value. Whether this effectiveness is due to a placebo effect or the healing action of the drug is a hotly debated; unfortunately, the medical world has yet to produce sufficient evidence for either position. What further complicates this matter is that while homeopathy may act only as a placebo for one illness, it may actually have medicinal value for another. One study that was conducted in which homeopathy did prove effective was for the treatment of vertigo. In this particular study, scientists showed that homeopathy did have therapeutic value in treating the condition (Fontanarosa 432). Nonetheless, there have not been enough accredited studies conducted for one to judge fairly the potential medicinal benefits of homeopathy.

If, however, one goes so far as to accept the basic tenets of homeopathy, and assumes that it is effective in healing, then it becomes apparent that homeopathic medicine has several implicit advantages over other forms of medicine. Foremost among its assets is that it is a holistic mode of healing. In addition to healing a particular disease, homeopathy is further beneficial by increasing one’s overall bodily well being and hence serves to prevent future afflictions. Additionally, it produces these effects by stimulating and guiding the human body’s intrinsic healing energy, the vital force. Since homeopathic physicians prescribe remedies based upon all of a person’s manifested symptoms, their treatment should have a curative effect on all the symptoms, provided that the prescription itself is appropriate. Further, the unique philosophies associated with homeopathy allow its adherents to offer treatment to any symptomatic disease. Interestingly, from one perspective, homeopathic philosophies make its treatment more individualized, however from another, the cure is far more general. The curative drug is that which best suits the patient’s symptoms and individual profile. The causative agent is insignificant, because in all cases, the generalized problem is that the vital force is out of proper balance. This approach permits a very personalized treatment, rather than the use of a blanket drug that is supposedly effective for every case of a diagnosed disease regardless of the varying personal symptoms (Hulke 119).

Comparative Scales:

This is a comparative representation of where homeopathy is located in designated scale between two opposite viewpoints. The scale will run between the extremes of 1 and 10 with 5 considered neutral.

a. (1) Emphasis on Traditional Authority è Emphasis on Testimony of Experience (10)

Rating: 6 Homeopathy is dependent upon both the testimony of experience and the traditional authority of Samuel Hahnemann. The process of developing this medicine was one of experimentation and data analysis; tradition has no credence in such a system of validation. Furthermore, a medicinal technique cannot continue to exist unless it proves itself valuable in treating patients. Regardless of whether its effects are self-induced as in a placebo, or whether they have real merit, a patient must see results.

b. (1) Centralization of Authority è Decentralization of Authority (10)

Rating : 8

While homeopathy is contingent upon institutions to train doctors, the authority lies in the popular opinion. Without the support of patients and their willingness to use its techniques as a means of treatment, homeopathy would become obsolete.

c (1) Invisible Realities è Earthly Realities (10)

Rating: 5 (neutral)

Homeopathy is based both upon a drug’s effect on an unseen vital force, and the tangible symptoms which both the vital force and the curative drug elicit in the patient. The two realities are dependent upon one another.

d (1) moral objectives è pragmatic objectives (10)

Rating: 10

Homeopathy’s main interest is the overall well being of the human body. It is not a spiritual cleansing, nor is its effectiveness contingent upon moral character of the patient.

e (1) Power in divine being è Power in individual (10)

Rating: 10

The healing power of homeopathy relies upon naturalistic causes and the vital force of the body. There is no divine intercession.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Hahnemann, Samuel. 1922. Organon of Medicine, 6th ed., translated by William Boericke. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel; repr. Delhi: B. Jain Publishers, 1998.

This is the homeopathic bible so to speak. It is written by Samuel Hahnemann and contains his original theories regarding homeopathy. This source was essential for my paper and for my own understanding of homeopathy.

Kent, James Tylor. 1905. Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel; repr. as Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. Delhi: B. Jain Publishers, 1999.

Though a bit verbose, I found that this was a fairly useful source. Kent is a renowned homeopathic doctor and this book is a collection of his lectures. Each lecture deals with a particular passage from Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine. Kent interprets each passage and in doing so extracts the true meaning of Hahnemann’s homeopathy.

Marti, James. The Alternative Health & Medicine Encyclopedia. New York; Gale Research Inc., 1995.

This source is a guide for many types of alternative medicine. It suggests several homeopathic remedies for health problems such as impotence, prostate disease, vertigo, and sinusitis.

Secondary Sources:

Fontanarosa, Phil B. Alternative Medicine: an Objective Assessment. Chicago, IL; American Medical Association, 2000. This provided me with several studies regarding homeopathy. One such study, which tested the efficacy of homeopathy in treating vertigo, was particularly interesting.

Goldstein, Michael S. Alternative Health Care: medicine, miracle, or mirage? Philadelphia & Temple University Press, 1999.

I did not find this source very useful. It barely touched on homeopathy at all. It might however, be useful if one were considering alternative medicine as a whole.

Hulke, Malcolm. The Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine and Self Help. New York – Schoken Books, 1979.

I found that Hulke’s book was a very thorough summary of homeopathy and I used it the most out of all my secondary sources. It has several interesting insights into homeopathic medicine, including one particular supporting argument for the efficacy of homeopathy’s minute doses (hormones).

Monte, Tom. World Medicine. Los Angeles: Jeremy P Tarcher / Perigee Books, 1993.

I used this source more for background information. It gives a brief, but well-done, summary of the history of homeopathy. In addition, it also touches on several of the controversies surrounding homeopathy.

Woodham, Anne. DK Encyclopedia of Healing Therapies. New York; DK Publishing Inc, 1997

While not particularly useful for this paper, this source was nevertheless interesting. It has some history and some information regarding homeopathy’s founding principles. The most intriguing aspect, however, was that it gives a contemporary overview of the diagnosis and prescription of homeopathic medicine.