Evidences of the power of small doses and attenuated medicines, including a theory of potentization. A discourse before the New York Homoeopathic Society, March 9th, 1847 / [Benjamin F. Joslin].

  • Joslin, Benjamin F. (Benjamin Franklin), 1796-1861
Date:
1848
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Evidences of the power of small doses and attenuated medicines, including a theory of potentization. A discourse before the New York Homoeopathic Society, March 9th, 1847 / [Benjamin F. Joslin]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/36 (page 13)
    though great, and driven by fierce winds, are yet turned about by a very small helm.” Thirdly, The efficacy of a small dose— and the danger of a large one — is increased by the peculiarly sensitive con¬ dition of disordered parts. Suffering with a morbid action, similar to that producible by fho medicine, they possess a preternaturally acute sensibility to its influence. It is unnecessary to illustrate and confirm this principle by examples. They are obvious and numberless. The scald¬ ed hand is pained by a distant fire, the inflamed skin by slight percussion, and the inflamed eye by light. I'he agents, which now with feeble intensity, can severely aggra¬ vate the .irritation, could, if applied with greater intensity, liave originated the inflammation in the healthy parts. But the force which can barely aggravate the existing irritation, could not have irritated the parts when in their normal con¬ dition. That kind of irritant which, in the locality in which it acts and in the phenomena which it developes, resembles the cause of any disease, is found by experience to be its proper curative. The excitement which this, given in small doses, produces, is soon followed by melioration of the dis¬ ease, and ultimately by permanent cure. The dose admin¬ istered on such a principle should be exceedingly small, and the action of such a dose, given under such circumstances, is not incredible. We sometimes hear of men — in sound health — going in¬ to the chamber of a patient, and swallowing a inmblerfid of a solution which a Homoeopathic ])hysician had left to be administered in teaspoonful doses. This is a common sense — that is to say—a shallow — argument against Homoeo¬ pathy, by very green philosophers. Suppose such a man should visit a patient whose eyes were inflamed, and ex¬ ceedingly intolerant of light. He finds him in a dark cham¬ ber which has sixty-four panes of glass; but the patient de¬ clares, that it irritates his eyes to uncover a single one of them. The visitor declares this to be incredible and absurd ; and proves to his own satisfaction the truth of his own po¬ sition, by raising every curtain, and finding that his own eyes are not injured by the light. If the weak minded and uninstrucled should be gathered into a school of elementary science, the man who swallowed the sixty-four teaspoonfuls should be placed in the same class with the man who un¬ covered the sixty-four panes. I know not his residence, but hope he will make it known before such a charitable insti¬ tution is established. The fourth reason why Hahnemann’s small doses are eflH