Clinical Cases

A Case Of Iritis

Written by Arthur G. Allan

A useful article about A Case Of Iritis.Full details about A Case Of Iritis

November 20– Mrs. H., married, 36, mother of two children, came to consult about her right eye at 9 P.M. She was suffering from an acute attack of iritis, which had commenced three days before. Her eye was intensely red, the pupil was contracted and not movable. There were already posterior adhesions, as an exudation covering part of the lower part of the pupil could be distinctly seen. She had marked photophobia with lachrymation, and she stated that the tears felt hot when they ran out of the eyes. She complained of a great deal of pain in the supraorbital region, but gave her symptoms very poorly, merely staling that she had been worse since noon. Upon the symptoms, which I confess, were few and quite general, I gave her Belladonna CM, one dose, telling her to be sure and return early in the morning. The next morning she came on time and stated that she had suffered terribly from the pain and that she had not slept any during the night, she was unable to keep in bed, for the pain became so severe that she could not lie still, was obliged to get up and walk the floor. She said she felt as if there was something on the upper lid which was scraping the eye.

Hot fomentations, as hot as she could bear, gave temporary relief to the pains. Her breath was offensive and her tongue thickly coated. She was feverish, thirsty for cold drinks and her mouth and throat were full of thick saliva. I gave her Mercurius sol CM, five doses at intervals of an hour.

November 22 : Found her much better, bore the light better than she could the day before, and she stated that she was able to lie in bed the whole night, although the pain during the night was at times very severe. From this time on improvement was steady and rapid until on the 28th I was able to pronounce the eye entirely well. On making a careful examination of the eye I found that the adhesions which I had observed at the first examinations had broken and that the iris dilated normally when in the dark. The cure in this instance has been permanent, there has been no relapse up to the present time.

Here we have the notes of two very similar cases of iritis similar because they required the same remedy. In one there were posterior adhesions, in the other there were none visible; in both there was complete recovery with the absorption of the plastic exudations, with, in one case cited, actual breaking of adhesions which had taken place. There is a point to which I wish to call attention, and it is this, that in any disease, no matter what, from the moment that the homoeopathic remedy has been administered the morbid process ceases to operate. Thus, if you have to deal with an inflammation of the iris, the inflammation ceases from the moment that the medicine is introduced into the mouth. From this moment the danger of posterior adhesions of the iris to the lens is likewise over and the necessity of using a mydriatic to dilate the pupil, as is the teaching of the old school, does not exist any longer. But when I say that the morbid process ceases to operate I do not mean that we shall see the inflammation wiped out, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, with sudden restoration of the parts to their normal appearance; but I do mean to say that the inflammation which up to that moment was increasing in intensity will be arrested and that the parts will return to their normal condition as soon as they are able to regain their normal condition by a natural, healthy reaction. In a case of pneumonia you can not force resolution to take place before its time, neither can you by any means force resorption of inflammatory matter in eye inflammations to take place immediately.

But by your medicines you can stop the inflammation and the formation of more plastic matter, so that when you have chosen the homoeopathic remedy and administered it, you can feel an absolute confidence, knowing that no further mischief can be wrought by the disease and that in due time the eye will be restored to its former condition. I have often been asked by old-school physicians : “What is it that prevents adhesions from taking place in the interval that elapses between the time of administering the remedy and the disappearance of the ciliay injection?” If Atropia be used then they can readily understand why adhesions do not take place, but without its use they can not comprehend why they do not occur. But from what has just been said, we see that after the administration of the homoeopathic remedy, there will be no more plastic exudation thrown out, and consequently, no adhesions can form. In the state of health no adhesions form in those cases where the iris, when contracted, is in contact with surface of the lens, and none can form in disease unless there be a plastic exudation, out of which adhesions may be made. The homoeopathic remedy stops this formation of plastic matter the moment it has been put into the mouth (or by another means introduced into the system), and although redness of the eyeball may linger behind for some time, it is merely a harmless relic of the inflammation that had previously existed.

About the author

Arthur G. Allan

Arthur G. Allan

Leave a Comment