The History of American Homeopathy: From Rational Medicine to Holistic Health Care

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 Whither the Future? Whither the Future? In its summer 2002 issue, the American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine (AJHM) published a series of articles highlighting a controversy involving the question of whether some reformers had gone too far in their acceptance of “new ideas” and thus undermined homeopathy by forsaking “disciplined thought and rational skepticism.” The ideas in question included quantum theory, chaos theory, systems theory , and consciousness. Did these concepts alter the way homeopaths conducted provings? Did they change how homeopaths formulated ideas about the materia medica? Did they change how homeopaths administered their medicines?1 Referenced in the exchange of views were the so-called essences of George Vithoulkas, the “physical pathology ” encouraged by the Argentinian Francisco Xavier Eizayaga, and the later more subjective interpretations of symptoms, dreams, and correspondences with nature.2 Many of these newer ideas were the work of well-known national and international teachers who reputedly had broken new ground in bridging Western and Eastern medicine and philosophy. This resulted in some homeopaths feeling the existence of a very real division emerging within classical homeopathy. The “epicenter” for this discussion appeared in a series of letters and editorials emanating from an interview with George Vithoulkas that appeared in Homeopathic Links in 1999, a subsequent editorial by Julian Winston in Homeopathy Today in 2000, and an article in Simillimum in 2001 by Canadian naturopath André Saine. Winston criticized many of the speculative teachings of more recent homeopaths for going beyond the boundaries of classical homeopathy. Later in the same issue, he reviewed Nancy Herrick’s book on animal 141 provings and again cautioned against what he saw as too heavy a speculative character among the newer homeopaths.3 Saine’s article titled “Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine: A Call to Action,” accused Roger Morrison and his colleagues of prescribing “superficially ,” failing to teach the principles of the Organon, promoting speculative treatment, and spreading false doctrines.4 For his part, Saine opposed those pseudo-homeopaths who practiced the doctrine of signatures ; used remedies that conveyed themes, essences and central delusions; and employed new methodologies in case-taking, case analysis , and provings of medicines that were contrary to the principles of homeopathy enunciated by Hahnemann’s. “The practice of medicine is sound as long as it is based on pure observation and correct reasoning ,” argued Saine. This was the “very heart of pure homeopathy” and was now being threatened by the teachings and practices of Morrison and his colleagues. All of the occult properties of plants that were subsumed into the doctrine of signatures had been rejected by Hahnemann. Thus to admit the doctrine into homeopathy was “not only a vain attempt at falsification of history but, even more grave, a misrepresentation of homeopathy.”5 Saine went on to recount the speculative approach taken by Rajan Sankaran who had reported in Homeopathic Links the following: For many years I have advocated taking cases with virtually no questions. I believe that asking questions limits what we hear to only what we want to hear. In the process we lose the individuality of the patient and more often a more exact remedy.6 Here again, argued Saine, was a serious misrepresentation of Hahnemann’s teachings. “Constant individualization is the trademark of pure homeopathy,” he insisted, “while generalization is a consistent feature throughout conventional medicine. Medicine teaches that physicians who succeed in individualizing consequently succeed in curing, while the ones who generalize fail.”7 Those who committed errors of “generalization” and “poor methodology” were practicing the “antithesis of science and pure homeopathy.”8 Saine, who was dean of the Canadian College of Homeopathy and editor of the works of Adolphe Lippe, expressed deep concern with beliefs and practices that were at variance with the principles of homeopathy and the scientific method. There were specified standards 142 THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN HOMEOPATHY to which homeopaths must adhere to remain true to their science. Assuring this required peer review and constant watchfulness. For those who misrepresented homeopathy, he felt that their allegations and falsifications should be investigated and adjudicated by the profession.9 Saine identified ten of the most relevant principles of homeopathy. 1. The physician’s main objective is to help the sick recover their health. . . . All personal ambitions and the desire to impress others must be set aside 2. The highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease...