urine, upper and lower limbs cold and clammy, eyes rolled up, to use a common expression "set"; lids partially opened and a sort of stupor from which it was difficult to rouse the little one. Dissolution was apparently setting in rapidly, and 1 began to despair of saving the the child’s life. My friend and partner, Dr. R. Ross Roberts, of this place was summoned to the case and confirmed the above diagnosis, Apocynum was given at his suggestion, and we left the case, promising to call in the evening; we did so, and found the child much improved, having passed large quantities of water during the day. The Secale was suspended during the administration of the Apocynum, and after the urine began to flow freely the latter was suspended, and the former given, after which the child went on rapidly to recovery, and is now a hale, hearty specimen.
There is much of value to be obtained from a hint like this. It is my belief that many young children pass in to the ureamic condition mentioned before and die. A timely administaration of Apocynum, or some other remedy which would promptly restore the flow of urine, will change the nature of the case and snatch as it were, a victim from the jaws of death ; on the other hand, a neglect to pay attention to this function has and will continue to cost many lives. I trust this hint may prove as useful and valuable to others as it has to me.
American Journal of Homeopathic Materia Medica, Pa., Dec 1868, Vol.II, No.4,
p.182.
Observation: This case is interesting for totally different reasons than the ones mentioned by the reporting doctor. It is obvious that the remedy that was the similimum was Apocynum, whereas the Secale cor. acted as a palliative on a local level, while at the same time suppressing the whole disease to deeper levels. Why then does the doctor say that while Apocynum was discontinued and Secale given again the case had a good evolution? It is only the action of the correct remedy -Apocynum – that continued to give positive results and brought the case to a complete cure. My reasons for saying so are the following:
1. No time was given for Apocynum to show its longer action after it had established the flow of urine and ameliorated the whole situation.
2. No remedy will act curatively locally and at the same time bring about a general amelioration unless it is the correct one. But if Apocynum was the correct remedy, where is the need for a second remedy when the doctor does not mention the development of any different symptomatology to justify his prescription for Secale?
3. Secale is a very warm remedy while Apocynum is cold, and this alone could differentiate the remedies.
4. Secale and Apocynum look alike only inasmuch as they both have a continuous metrorrhagia, as does Phosphorus also. But if Secale was the wrong remedy, why then did it not suppress the case again as it had done in the first place? The answer is because after Apocynum the whole symptomatology had changed and the organism had also become stronger. In view of these thoughts, the doctor’s hint about needing Apocynum to reestablish the flow of urine in uremia is misleading, because this remedy will only affect a similar cure if and when it is really indicated. The reason why the doctor repeated Secale again immediately after the curative action of Apocynum is – to my understanding – simply to confuse the issue and not admit that his first prescription was wrong!