A Critical Analysis of Organopathy in Diagnosis and Practice

Introduction

There are many different ideas in homeopathy today and many angles from which case-taking, analysis and prescribing is approached. The more recent theories come from homeopaths such as Scholten, Mangialavori and Sankaran, to name a few, who seek to enhance the comprehension of homeopathy, the familial connections of remedies and the methodological aspects of case-taking and case-analysis¹.

We have already seen the development of approaches which differ from Hahnemann’s classical approach. These approaches have gained a valued place in the treatment of disease.

This essay investigates one of the `older´ approaches, that is different from the classical concept, but nonetheless homeopathic in its foundation².The focus of this critical analysis is ‘Organopathy’, which describes a treatment practice where case-taking focuses on locality, and remedy selection on the symptoms of organs or organ-systems³. This approach implies that the vital force creates disease in the organs and that organs and organ-systems are interactive parts of the whole⁴.

Historical evolution

The organopathic treatment approach is much older than classical homeopathic prescribing⁵. Beginning in folk medicine, prescribing by interpreting similitude of a healing agent to indications of internal organs was common practice. What found its origin in Paracelsian medicine and was regarded much as an earlier notion of the Hahnemannian understanding of similar, was further developed by Rademacher as an independent pragmatic medical art. It was refined and defined by Burnett in the 1900´s as organopathy⁵.

Paracelsus (1493-1541), 200 years prior to Hahnemann (1755-1843), pointed out that “similar must be compared to similar”⁶. He referred to plants as ‘external’ organs, and was the initiator of the idea that a “disease is cured with a substance which has the same essence”⁵. It was Paracelsus who first spoke of the idea of Similars⁷. But his understanding was not the same as what Hahnemann later incorporated into his Law of Similars. The difference between the Paracelsian view and the Law of Similars is of a pharmacological nature. To Paracelsus, ´similar` meant that the internal organs of an organism had an herbal counterpart in nature that was similar to the organ’s specific disturbance⁸. For Hahnemann, ‘Similar’ meant that the symptom picture expressed in an ill individual had to be similar to the symptoms experienced by a healthy person upon ingestion of a substance, in order to cure⁵.

Hahnemann (1974), as described in Aphorism 18, saw only the totality of symptoms expressing the ill state, and cure therefore should only be possible matching a remedy to the given totality.

Rademacher (1772-1850), who was a contemporary to Hahnemann, introduced the identification of the pathologic organ as origin of an illness⁹. Paracelsus and Rademacher alike understood an organ to express the state of the whole individual, and the curative action of a remedy on the diseased organ should heal the entire individual. Hahnemann refined this by taking into consideration specifics about the character of the indisposition and by seeking a comparative system of mapping remedial action identified in a healthy individual, with the symptom pattern of a disease⁷.

It was in the late nineteenth century that Burnett (1840-1901) sought to combine the Paracelsian view of the curative effect of remedies in nature, with the physical aspects of diseases that Rademacher had identified, and aimed at unifying this with the philosophy of the homeopathic treatment approach¹⁰. He thereby introduced a new joint approach to healing described as organopathy.

Burnett was member of the legendary Cooper club, where Skinner (1825-1906), Cooper (1844-1903), Burnett and Clarke (1853-1931) critically investigated the old and new theories of homeopathy. Whilst Skinner and Clarke were advocates of high potency prescribing, Burnett and Cooper were users of un-potentized tinctures and low potencies. During the time of the Cooper-club, these four investigated treatment approaches and remedies, and expanded the use and diversity of nosodes¹⁰, (preparations derived from pathological cultures or secretions¹¹). Burnett made use of organopathy and the miasm theory, with the prescription of nosodes, especially in his treatment of cancer¹⁰.

Philosophical underpinnings

Rademacher challenged the theories postulated by Paracelsus and researched the principles the latter had formulated. Rademacher had to acknowledge that organs could be seen as individual entities and as connected to the bigger whole^2,8. He also had to confirm that in nature there existed sources of remedies that reflected organs in the body, and that the expressions of a disease were also influenced by the patient’s environment. In conclusion, he had to affirm that the “energetic principle of the remedy is curative of the disease” ⁸ (p. 540).

He identified and described ‘Universal remedies’ that reflected the theory that Hahnemann had found in his miasms. These were three basic ailment patterns he recognized inherent in patients, much like Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis⁸. To him the reaction of a remedy on the whole person was universal, and that affecting only an organ, of organopathic utility¹². Rademacher therefore declared that a patient, whose pathology could not be helped by the use of organ remedies, would be subject to amelioration by a universal remedy related to one of the three principal patterns⁸.

Rademacher identified a disease as organopathic if the primary seat of the disease was the localization of pain in that particular organ. This ‘pecificity of seat’ was recognizable if in the acute flare-up, pain was felt longest in the organ of primary affection⁹. This did not mean however, that the symptom manifestation in an organ, necessarily identified the disease as confined to this one particular organ¹².

Underlying this, according to Burnett, was the idea of a pathological perspective of homeopathy, where the simillimum selected is that of the disease and not just that of the symptoms. He believed that behind the holistic symptom expression is a more distinctive, a more precise symptomatology that identifies the “true pathologic simile” ²(p.95). To Burnett there existed different types of simillimum, namely the ‘pathologic simile’ reflecting the development of disease, the ‘simple symptomatic simillimum’ taking into account the totality as proclaimed by Hahnemann, and a ‘simple simillimum’ that has a superficial correspondence to symptoms expressed²(p.95).⁵

Comparison with Hahnemannian teachings

In order to compare Hahnemann’s and Burnett’s homeopathic approach, their two descriptive terms of homeopathic treatment have to be differentiated. Classical homeopathy is the Hahnemannian approach, where the prescribed remedy is selected in order to most closely match the totality of the individual symptoms in a particular patient.^13,3 Clinical homeopathy comes closer to the fundamental principle of organopathy. In this, homeopathic remedies are selected according to a “disease name”¹⁴, that is, according to a clinical diagnosis and the symptom-similarity to the diseased organ¹³. Organopathy is therefore seen as quite close to allopathic, diagnostic treatment¹⁵.

Hahnemann’s and Burnett’s aspects differ fundamentally in terms of idiosyncrasy. Individualization is that fundamental key to Hahnemannian case-taking. Hahnemannian focus is on the individual, externally expressed signs created by the impaired state of health. Hahnemann sought to compile subjective, patient specific symptoms¹⁶ which could be descriptive of a defined anatomical area of the body, but not so refined as to be specific of an organ-pathology. This meant that with Hahnemannian case-taking, organ specific descriptions could be missed². Burnett represented the belief that the pathologic aspect, the ailment inside the organism, needed also to be taken into consideration, and that “a case had to be homeopathic from the pathological perspective too”² (p.95).

The detail of anatomical expression, specifically of physiological activity, to Burnett, described the organ that was pathologically impaired and reflected indicators to the remedy that had an affinity to that particular organ². Yet Burnett believed that the simillimum to a patient’s diseased state could be found by application of either technique, Hahnemann’s symptomatic, taking into account the totality of symptoms, or his pathologic, disease-specific, simillimum approach².

There are diseases that have no totality encompassing symptomatology, where the pathology is organ specific, organ symptomatic and confined to the locality of a specific organ¹⁷. Burnett was constantly aware and deliberate of retrieving the most ‘similar’ remedy for a disease, but recognized that organ diseases frequently required only organ specific healing¹⁸. This is much in opposition to what Hahnemann indicated in Aphorism 7 of the Organon, that the only form of healing is that which incorporates the totality of the patient, even if there is only a localized, organ-specific symptomatology¹⁹.

In prescribing, Burnett’s method was also in opposition to Hahnemann’s idea. Burnett could not confirm Hahnemann’s postulation that each case of illness of every individual required only one single prescription. Burnett’s emphasis was, that there was a requirement for well-reasoned multiple prescribing and administering of remedies^2,20. But Burnett had to acknowledge limitations to organopathic prescribing. A health impairment on a constitutional level lies beyond the range of activity of organ remedies. Burnett saw this as the “inherent defect of organopathy”⁵ (p.18).The holistic organism is left unaffected by organopathic prescribing, only the interaction of organ and organism may be influenced positively².

Particular indications for the use of this method included specialized areas of practice According to a survey done by Monk-Schenk in 2002 the main characteristics demanding the use of organ supporting remedies today, are indicated by chronic suffering where the central focus of symptom expression is on a particular organ. Organopathy is also indicated where expressed symptoms are localized and of a physical nature, and where the patient claims to never have been improved since the organ was affected².

Whilst it has been repressed in classical homeopathy, locality is one main indicator for an organopathic treatment. Locality is of major importance, as Burnett points out that the pathology of symptom expressions needs to be encompassed by the chosen simillimum⁹. According to Blair’s (2009) article, Burnett found Hahnemannian homeopathy too limiting, as the Law of Similars only permits one interpretation of a simillimum and is therefore restrictive in finding the specifically matching prescription. Burnett pointed out that organs are individual systems within the organism, the bigger system, which have individuality in terms of their functions and their diseases. He indicated that if an organ autonomously suffers from disease it can be cured by treating organopathically. If on the other hand the organ is impaired due to the whole organism’s suffering of a chronic, miasmatic impairment, the organopathic remedies will act solely as palliatives and the great anti-miasmatic remedies have to be prescribed²⁰. This becomes evident in Burnett’s treatment of Tumors in Cancer.

Burnett was described as a “great cancer doctor” in his time²⁰. He insisted that in advanced physical pathology, the treatment with low potencies and tinctures is of greatest benefit to the patient¹⁰. It is with the combination of the high potency prescribing of classical homeopathy, the administration of Nosodes and organ-specific treatment that great success is seen in the treatment of cancer^2,5,21. This combined treatment of local affinity and miasmatic trait is aimed at achieving a complete and permanent recovery⁴.

Burnett successfully treated the local affection and the effective disposition. The local destruction of the cancerous growth alone could never have been declared a healing, as long as the disposition was not eliminated⁴. “The chemical destruction of a tumor is pointless, because it is a sanguine growth that has to be cured vitally”⁴ (p. 5).

Burnett saw cancer as “the final stage of a chain of causal occurrences”⁴(p. 5). Whilst his belief remained strictly classical homeopathy in that the aim was to heal the vital force that had created the cancerous growth, he was convinced that only a series of remedies could cure a case. He believed that each individual remedy working in the direction of cure could, combined together, lead to cure of the cancer⁴. In his prescriptions for the treatment of cancer, he alternated between anti-miasmatic remedies in high potencies and organ-specific medicines in low potency. His repeated administration of remedies in high potencies did not follow Kentian specifications⁴, where a single dose of a single remedy was administered and a repeat or subsequent prescription would not be given until the prior remedy had completed its action²². Burnett would administer high potencies in a few weeks of one another and low potencies several times daily⁴.

This methodology has regained its importance and has been applied by Coulter and Ramakrishnan (2001). They have recognized that the affinities of organ remedies to an organ are thus also specific to the site of cancer development if it is located in that organ. Their treatment of cancer incorporates the alternation of an organ support remedy with one identified as constitutional.

Another indication for the use of an organopathic treatment approach is found in the methodology that is described as drainage. Here the aim is to select remedies that lead to a detoxification of the body²³. Maury (1965) ascribes a dual role to drainage; that of organ stimulation and of excretion of toxic products that have been bound in the diseased organism. He postulates a three-fold benefit to the methodology. There is a benefit to the patient in that the detoxification of the organism will avoid an interaction of toxins with the remedies that are subsequently administered. The treatment of the excretory organs prior to remedy prescription may result in a more rapid onset of the effects of the remedy that is to follow detoxification. As a consequence, the homeopathic treatment will be experienced as a rapidly acting methodology without any aggravation²⁴. A further indication for the use of organopathy in organ support, as Runcie (1972) points out, is to eliminate possible aggravations for patients who are sensitive²⁵.

Implications for case-taking method

The organism is an entity, a co-existence of inside and outside that is monitored and operated by a dynamic life-force²⁰. Therefore, prescriptions in homeopathy are sought to be individualized. Hahnemann (1974) in Aphorism 5 of the Organon points out that only the idiosyncratic totality of symptoms perceived in the state of illness can point the practitioner to the selection of an appropriate remedy. In Aphorism 185 he discusses the implications of a locally circumscribed disease that does not create symptoms other than those at the specific location. Yet Hahnemann never omits the aspect of individuality and totality of symptoms in his case-taking, much in opposition of the information that is needed in application of organopathic principles.

Case-taking with an organopathic focus is considered much more superficial than that of classical homeopathy, as only local symptomatology is considered²⁶. Organopathic case-taking requires the practitioner to have vast knowledge of disease symptomatology and organ function². To Hahnemann of course, this was the much rejected alliance of allopathy and homeopathy that he wanted to avoid and that opposed the acquisition of the symptom totality that he taught².

The allopathic diagnostic techniques utilized by Rademacher, such as palpating the organ, were later adapted by Burnett^5,8. Burnett had sought a system to utilize for prescribing, when with the classical Hahnemannian case-taking, the identification of a simillimum was not possible⁵. For an appropriate prescription, he considered three fundamental foci of action of an organ remedy. There had to be the considered the relation of a remedy to a particular organ, the character of action it was able to produce and its range of impact². He also indicated that there was a posological and dosological aspect to organopathy. He pointed out that organ remedies had a stronger impact on disease in material dosage and in repetitive prescription, whilst the higher potencies were considered more appropriate for constitutional prescribing and less frequent administrations². Here Burnett conformed to the principles laid out by Hahnemann. The dosage and potency that Burnett expressed, he justified as due to the reduced similitude that organopathic prescriptions have, whilst the remedies given constitutionally, in increased potency had a larger spectrum of similitude and therefore the dosage could be lessened¹⁸. The organopathic treatment was generally a single or compound prescription administered in low potency that was frequently repeated. The dosage was adjusted according to the patients´ reaction to the prescription. Rademacher pointed out that seldom is one single remedy sufficient to cure a case⁵.

Implications for conceptual analysis of materia medica

Organopathy has given a new approach to remedies and their prescribing. The organopathic remedies are selected by knowledge of their pharmacological activity on the local expression and their linkage to an organ and its pathology. There is a ‘doctrine of signature’ perspective in organopathic prescribing; where characteristics and structure of plants resemble organs of the body and have a therapeutic effect on the disease expressions in an organ²⁷. “The healthy force from the plant can be utilized against the unhealthy force in the diseased person”¹⁰. This reflects the parallel to what was understood as the Paracelsian law of Similars, and is difficult to combine with the philosophy of Hahnemannian homeopathy¹⁰. Paracelsus was a firm believer that in nature there existed an herb for every ailment.^7,8.

Being largely derived from plants and administered mainly in un-potentized form, the organopathic remedies are more commonly described in the herbal materia medica than in material medica of homeopathy²⁸. Whether herbal or homeopathic, is therefore determined by a pharmaceutical and a clinical perspective. The pharmaceutical domain requires congruence in the production of remedies as outlined in existent homeopathic pharmacopeias. The manufacturing of homeopathic mother tinctures does not differ to that of phytotherapeutic fabrication. Whether a remedy is homeopathic is therefore determined by the clinical rationale behind the administration of a remedy, by the reference to signs and symptoms valued in the homeopathic case-taking²⁹.

Burnett also began introducing Nosodes to his organopathic treatment^2,5. Especially in cancer this is today common practice as can be noted in the treatment approach to cancer taken by Coulter and Ramakrishnan (2001).

More recently Ian Watson introduced and enriched the organ therapy by the use of Sarcodes³⁰, remedies made from healthy organ tissue¹¹.

Conclusion
Organopathy implies that a defect in an organ should be corrected, by removing the impairing influence. The appropriate remedy is the agent employed to stimulate repair within that organ²⁸. Burnett’s methodology is one that complements Hahnemannian philosophy². What initially was postulated a relic of ancient folk medicine, was refined and developed through time, mainly, by Paracelsus, Rademacher and Burnett, to become a vital method of homeopathy.

Organopathic treatment stands largely isolated and much in opposition to that of today’s contemporary homeopaths, such as Scholten, with his concept of series and stages³¹ or Sankaran with his designation of different potencies to different levels of sensation³². Their new ideas and approaches seek to find the simillimum in the spheres of remedy affiliations to groups or families¹, and are more compliant with the single remedy prescribing of classical Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Another method that has complemented the diversity of homeopathic treatment approaches, is Schüssler’s biochemic remedies¹². Schüssler’s focus of prescribing also lay in the realms of low potencies¹⁰ and was aimed at promoting the regulation of imbalance³³.

Whether the homeopathic practitioner relates the disharmony of a specific organ within the Hahnemannian totality to the mental and emotional traits of the individual³⁴ or associates symptomatology to a specific organ, as in organopathy, the only aim of the practitioner should be relief the patient as described in Aphorism 1 of the Organon¹⁹.

Keller¹⁶ (p.151) stressed one point about organopathy: “However great the differences may have been in the medical thinking of Hahnemann and Rademacher, in practice we are heirs of both”!

References:

¹Makewell, S. (2006) Secret Lanthanides: Commentary, Reflection, and Book Review. Interhomeopathy – International Homeopathy Internet Journal [online] last accessed 15.03.10 at URL http://www.interhomeopathy.org/index.php/journal/entry/secret_lanthanides/

²Blair, J. (2009) Organopathy – a relevant approach? The Homeopath Vol.28, No.3, pp.92-99.

³Witt, P. (2007) Organotropie : Was versteht man in der Homoeopathie unter Organotropie? [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://www.homoeopathie-heilpraktiker.de/lexikon/organotropie.htm

⁴Schuller, M. (unknown) Analyse der Krebsbehandlung von J. Compton Burnett, John Henry Allen, Emil Schlegel und Eli Jones [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL

⁵Monk-Schenk, M. (2002) Organ Remedies; Our Gift from Paracelsus and Rademacher, with Special Focus on the Liver and Spleen The Homeopath No.87, pp.14-19.

⁶Clarke, J.H. (1999) Hahnemann and Paracelsus [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://homeoint.org/morrell/clarke/prefacemorrell.htm

⁷Dudgeon, R.E. (2000) Similarities between Hahnemann and Paracelsus [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/clarke/dudgeon.htm

⁸Whitney, J. (1996) The Legacy of Rademacher The Homoeopath No.61, pp.540-542.

⁹Wholehealthnow (2008) Specificity of Seat – James Compton Burnett and the Generalization of Locality [online] last accessed 13.02.10 at URL http://www.wholehealthnow.com

¹⁰Morrell, P. (1995) From Cooper Club to Flower essences: A Portrait of British Homeopathy 1870-1930 [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_coope.htm

¹¹Ali, M. (unknown) A study of Nosodes and Sarcodes [online] last accessed 15.03.10 at URL similima .com

¹²Runcie, J. (1972) Rademacher and his remedies The British Homeopathic Journal April, pp.32-34.

¹³ Garbers, U. (unknown) Abgrenzung des Begriffes „Klassische Homoeopathie” [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://www.praxisgarbers.de/

¹⁴Sujis, M. (2007) Potencies and chakras [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://www.interhomeopathy.org/potencies_and_chakras

¹⁵ Netdoktor.de (2010) Klassische Homoeopathie [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL

¹⁶Keller,von G. (1981) Chelidonium and organ therapy The British Homeopathic Journal July Vol.70, No.3, pp.143-151.

¹⁷Twentyman, L.R. (1980) The liver and depression. The British Homeopathic Journal January Vol.69, No.1, pp.12-14.

¹⁸Hofmann, R. (2000) James Compton Burnett (1840 -1901) [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL http://homeoint.org/biograph/burnettde.htm

¹⁹Hahnemann, S. (1974) Organon der Heilkunst (2.Auflage) Heidelberg: Karl F. Haug Verlag.

²⁰Lohmann, W. (2008) Hereditäre chronische Krankheiten [online] last accessed 07.02.10 at URL http://www.doktor-lohmann.de/hereditäre-chronische-krankheiten.html

²¹Coulter, C. and Ramakrishnan, A. (2001) A homeopathic approach to cancer St.Louis: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc.

²²Dayraud, V. (2000) James Tyler Kent [online] last accessed at URL http://www.homeoint.org/biograph/kenten.htm

²³Voegeli, A. (1979) Das ABC der Gesundheit Heidelberg: Karl F. Haug Verlag.

²⁴Maury, E.A. (1965) Drainage in Homoeopathy (Detoxification) Essex: The C. W. Daniel Company Ltd.

²⁵King, S. (2005) Organ remedies Home page [online] last accessed 27.12.09 at URL

²⁶Ärzte Zeitung (2008) Organotrope Homoeopathie ist leicht und schnell zu erlernen [online] last accessed 27.12.09 at URL

²⁷Rafeeque, M. (unknown) Doctrine of Signature in Homeopathy [online] last accessed 15.03.10 at URL http://www.similima.com

²⁸Rozencwajg, J. (2008) When the Perfect Simillimum is not Working [online] last accessed 13.02.10 at URL https://hpathy.com

²⁹Jütte, R. and Riley, D. (2005) A review of the use and role of low potencies in homeopathy [online] last accessed 13.02.10 at URL http://www.elsevierhealth.com

³⁰Watson, I. (1997) Organ-remedies – recording of a seminar in San Anselmo, California.

³¹Homoeopathyclinic (unknown) Prescribing on the basis of Jan Scholtens´ Method [online] last accessed 17.03.10 at URL http://www.homoeopathyclinic.com

³²Olenev, D. (2010) Sankarans´ seven levels and selecting the potency in Homeopathy [online] last accessed 17.03.10 at URL http://www.homeopathyforhealth.net

³³DHU (unknown) Biochemic remedies according to Dr. Schüssler [online] last accessed 17.03.10 at URL www.dhu.com

³⁴Ledermann, E. (unknown) The homeopathic treatment of common liver and gall-bladder disorders [online] last accessed 13.03.10 at URL