©Quarterly Homœopathic Digest XXVIII, 3&4/2011. For private circulation only. 94
From HAHNEMANNřs point of view there is a
distinct difference between general and particular
symptoms. The general symptoms are those which
refer to the person in his totality and to HAHNEMANN
and KENT they are those which have to lead us to the
group of remedies amongst which one has to find the
Simillimum. The particular symptoms are those which
refer to a part or an organ of the patient. It is easy to
realize that, logically, the general symptoms will be of
much greater importance than the particular ones,
because they indicate how the individual suffers in his
totality. But unfortunately the particular symptoms so
intensely draw the attention of the patient that the
physician often fixes his own on the same symptom,
disregarding the patientřs general way of reacting. The
result is that he succeeds in improving or in making
disappear the local trouble, leaving the morbid
potencies of that organism untouched. Soon the patient
again requires our services, for, once more, he suffers
from the same trouble, although it may be on another
location and that because we did not administer his
remedy, his chronic remedy, his constitutional remedy;
the homœopathicity of our first prescription was only
partial and we cured only partially; we individualized,
if it can be called thus, but only on the organ which
suffered most. This therapy, useful in acute diseases,
has little or no value at all in chronic cases or in acute
diseases, has little or no value at all in chronic cases or
in acute diseases, with deep and marked roots. Still it is
necessary to make one exception: among the particular
symptoms there might be some of those which
HAHNEMANN calls Ŗrare, singular and
characteristicŗ, which are peculiar to the patient,
distinguishing him from the rest, and due to this fact we
must consider them among the most important.
Frequently the characteristic symptoms serve us as
guides to find the remedy, but if we abuse the we would
not succeed in giving our patients all the benefits which
Homœopathy, if faithfully followed, is capable of
giving; in chronic diseases the characteristics assume
much less importance than in acute ones. The language
of chronic suffering is more complicated, lacks that
clearness and precision of the acute one and the
characteristic symptom hides itself, making the
selection difficult. Thus, then, in chronic cases, it is
better to abandon the hope of finding the remedy by
way of the characteristic symptoms; it is necessary to
take the case in its totality, judiciously classifying the
symptoms in the following order: First, the general
symptoms (general aggravation from change of
weather, cold or hot; in the open air; in a closed room;
standing, sitting or lying down; desires for or aversions
to food, etc.) Immediately after that we have to fix our
attention on mental symptoms, so important for the
correct selection. The mind is a perfect registrator of
the slightest alterations in the physiology or the
morphology of the organs, and thus, the symptoms of
this class range themselves in an immediate second
place, which makes them come up to almost an even
place with the general symptoms. We must investigate
these symptoms with the utmost care in order not to
produce an unpleasant reaction from the patient, if we
directly ask him whether he is jealous or inclined to
weep, before gaining his confidence, thus avoiding
giving him the impression that such are only silly
questions. Particular symptoms should be considered at
last for instance, the catarrhal discharges, the hardening
of such or such an organ or tissue, heartburn,
hoarseness, chronic enlargement of the tonsils, etc., etc.
Symptoms and signs that, when they do not carry the
stamp of the particular, are of little use in regard to the
prescription, for they do not individualize and
frequently only serve to get us lost, inducing us to
proceed allopathically. This is what happens when,
seeing the enlarged veins in a leg, we prescribe without
further investigations Hamamelis or Pulsatilla;
Aesculus for Hemorrhoids; Baryta carbonica for
chronic enlargement of the tonsils, etc. This is not
Homœopathy. In these cases there only exists a
relation of affinity between the remedy and the diseased
organ and we have not been given the trust of treating
only the enlarged tonsils, but a patient with enlarged
tonsils. KENT mentions, for this particular condition,
thirty-two remedies, and it may well be that the remedy
of our patient is not to be found in this list. SCHMIDT
of Geneva, relates a brilliant case of curing some
Varices of the lower limbs with Magnesia carbonica,
notwithstanding that in turning the leaves of KENTřs
Repertory, we will find that he does not mention this
remedy as useful for the correction of this condition of
the lower limbs; but Dr. SCHMIDT was guided by the
general and mental symptoms of the patient. Indeed,
that which interests us is the sick person and to discover
in what way he manifests his deficient fitting with the
environment, for when this is lacking, when this
deficient in the adaptation prolongs itself, the
modifications in the morphology of the organs establish
themselves and it is then that the pathologist becomes
active. Once the definite damage has been established,
the end results Ŕ as KENT calls them Ŕ may make the
services of the surgeon necessary.
Our role as physicians Ŗconsists (HAHNEMANN
said it apparently with great simplicity) in restoring
health to the sick, which is what we call curing.ŗ In
order to perform this task it is first of all necessary to
individualize and to do so with precision, according to
what HAHNEMANN and KENT taught us; thus we
will have a firm basis for reaching the simillimum. If
we are fortunate enough to determine the remedy with
exactness, we will only have gone half the way, for it is
not enough to arrive at the diagnosis of the remedy, but
it is imperative to know how to administer the remedy.