The definition of a homoeopathic physician pre-necessitates a definition of Homoeopathy, because it is a plain fact that, anybody who practices the principles and methods of Homoeopathy is a homoeopathic physician. But people of different views understand the word Homoeopathy differently and practice accordingly—and therein lies the rub. The rub can be settled only if we all can be unified in the meaning and purport of the etymology and connotation of the word Homoeopathy. Otherwise the misunderstanding, controversy and factionalism will go on persisting.
The basic law of Homoeopathy is a natural law—Similia Similibus Curantur—Likes are cured by Likes.
The law-based system of Medicine—Homoeopathy derives its very name from this law. The etymological meaning of the term Homoeopathy is the treatment by means of similar sickness, (G. Homoeos—similar, Patheia—disease), in other words—treatment of natural disease by producing similar artificial disease.
The propounder of Homoeopathy, Hahnemann in his opus magnum Organon has made a very simple statement in the first aphorism—The physician’s only mission is to cure the sick. This statement in reality is not so simple as it sounds. The basic trouble lies just there. Hahnemann has told us to cure the sick, he has never told us to remove any physical or metaphysical substance or one or more symptoms i.e. troubles of derangements. So, if we want to appreciate the significance of the only mission of the physician viz., to cure the sick, we have got to realize the connotation of the terms —disease, sickness, symptoms and cure.
Of the term disease, various grotesques are prevalent in the human society. In days of yore, disease was considered to be some metaphysical power (e.g., the casting of the evil eye of some deity like—Pencho, Shitala, Chandi, Shani etc). Attempts were made to remove the power by means of incantations and various maneuvers.
In the present age the invasions by various germs are called disease, and the destruction of those germs by means of various drugs is called cure. On the other hand again any troublesome symptom or symptom-group or any organic derangement is also called a disease (e.g., headache, gastric colic, leucorrhoea, dysmenorrhea, rheumatism, paralysis, various sorts of tumours, various sorts of eruptions or ulcers, pneumonia, typhoid etc.) and the removal of those troublesome symptoms or derangement is called cure.
But a bit of dipper thinking will show that none of those are basic disease. All those are only associated affairs or manifested signs and symptoms of the deranged organism. It is an easily comprehensible fact that, be it a metaphysical power, or be it some physical matter, they cannot have any influence on any healthy organism.
It also surely does not require any deep investigation to realize that the various troublesome symptoms or derangement have no separate existence, they are but various sensations and manifested signs of the deranged organism according to its own peculiarities and environment.
Hence judging from the standpoint of reason as well as from the standpoint of reality it is clear that disease has no separate existence independent of the organism. It is simply a deranged state of the whole organism with its body, mind and life.
The internal disease that is the deranged state is wholly reflected to the exterior not by only a few troublesome symptoms or disorders, but by the whole totality of symptoms, in other words the entire totality of the symptoms is the real manifested image of the internal derangement or disease. And it is this entire totality of the symptoms that is the object of treatment as well as also the guide.
Cure is nothing but bringing the deranged state to healthy state being guided by the totality of symptoms. In path of cure it will be seen that the symptoms will disappear in a definite order. And when the patient will be completely cured, the entire totality of symptoms will be found to have permanently disappeared.
Now it must be remembered that each and every organism has originated and developed from a single primary cell. An organism is unitary from its origin to its death. It must always be taken as a unity—be it in a state of health or in that of disease. And one is sure to go stray as soon as he goes to look at or consider any part isolatedly. Hence, in any condition of the patient the totality of his subjective and objective symptoms existent at the time must be taken as the real image of that condition.
It will be an error to look isolatedly to any particular symptom however much the symptom may be troublesome or dangerous. One shall go away from the path of cure if he notices the separate parts of the patient separately instead of taking him as a unity, at the time of selection the curative remedy as well as at the time of arranging for the appropriate regimen. Therefore, when selecting the similar medicine for the purpose of cure, we must pick and use a single remedy having similarity with, having similar symptoms and similar potency with the totality of the symptoms of the case in a particular condition. And that single remedy must be allowed to work without interference. Simultaneous use of more than one remedy or frequent change of remedy is totally inconsistent with the basic law of cure.
In the application of the law of cure i.e. the law of Homoeopathy, it is necessary to remember another basic feature of Nature and that is in the world of Nature no two things can be exactly the same type, and the same thing or person can never remain the same in different conditions. The same type of pathogenetic cause is bound to produce different reactions or derangements and corresponding totality of symptoms in different persons at different times. To use a particular specific remedy to all case of diseases of a particular type or name is inconsistent with the Law of Nature as well as the Law of Homoeopathy.
As one goes to practice on the basis of law of Similia an affair irresistibly crops up by virtue of practical necessity. And that is the matter of dose. The more the remedy will be similar to the condition of the patient the lesser shall have to be the dose, otherwise there will appear the possibility of unreasonable or hazardous aggravation of the disease—sufferings or derangements. And in practice it is noticed that there is no limit to this reduction of the dose. Moreover, in the process of reduction of the dose when one comes to such a stage, when no material existence of the drug in the dose can be by any means be traced, when it exists only in a dynamic state, even then the dose not only acts but acts more forcefully.
In this way we arrive at a basic corollary to the Law of Curative Therapeutics i.e., Homoeopathy and that is—in the field of cure, it is not the physical or chemical property of the remedy that acts but its dynamic quality. And this quality being a force can act only on the vital force of the organism. This corollary leads us to another corollary of Biology—the basic force of the organism with its body, mind and life is its vital force.
It is this vital force that controls the whole organism, be it in a healthy state or in a diseased state. The organism cannot remain an organism as soon as it becomes destitute of the vital force, then it becomes independent of biological laws, and acquiring the properties of an inert substance comes under the sway of the laws of Physics and Chemistry. For this reason any medicine to be used on an organism as a curative according to the biological laws i.e., a homoeopathic medicine, must be in potentized form.
Moreover, because of the fact that in the body of the organism the medium of conduction of power is the nervous system, any medicine in any minutest dose, just coming in contact with any nerve ending immediately starts its action. Hence, it is irrelevant to use that power by crude methods like injection etc.
Therefore, it is clear that, the following propositions are inseparably connected with the etymological meaning of the term Homoeopathy as well as with the law—Similia similibus Curantur—
(1) The curative remedy must be similarmost(similimum) to the totality of the symptoms of the whole diseased person with his body, mind and soul.
(2) There may be many remedies similar to a particular condition of a diseased person. But there can never be more than one remedy that is similarmost (superlative) because that is not only against grammar but also against reality. Hence the use of mixture is inconsistent with the Homoeopathic Law. The remedy must be used singly.
(3) The dose of the remedy must be minimum.
(4) The medicine must be potentized.
(5) For the utilization of the power of the remedy simple intaking or even inhalation is enough; the painful methods like injections etc. are irrelevant. So the application of the medicine must be the gentlest.
Hence the practice of full-fledged Homoeopathy is not at all possible by omitting any of the above-mentioned five inseparable aspects of Homoeopathy.
Therefore, the Definition o a Homoeopathic Physician stands as—A homoeopathic physician is one who considers the diseased person as a unique individual with his body, mind and soul and selects a remedy similar most to the personal totality of the symptoms of the case and uses it singly, in the potentized form and in the minimum dose, and allows it to work unhampered for sufficient time.
It is redundant to say that sufficient knowledge in the positions (anatomy) and functions (physiology) of the organism with his body, mind and soul is essential; otherwise none of the above aspects of homoeopathy can be applied with sufficient consciousness, prudence, confidence and faith.
On the contrary, any physician who practices by neglecting any of the above-noted five aspects of Homoeopathy cannot be called a full-fledged homoeopathic physician. Of course, a full grasp on those aspects of Homoeopathy and constant application of them in practice requires prolonged perseverance and practice. In other words, to become a full-fledged Homoeopathic Physician one requires prolonged persistence with sufficient honesty, sincerity and intelligence.
The more one advances in this path of perseverance—the more he becomes a homoeopathic physician. But if anybody does not care for any of those aspects, nor even for the basic law of Homoeopathy— application of remedy on the basis of symptom similarity, and uses medicines or specifics for various nosological names or symptoms groups, and in order to obtain the chemical action of such medicines they being not similar— uses big doses by means of injections etc. and still claims to be called a Homoeopathic Physician, it is really unreasonable and improper.