Dr Anjana Kumari.
Law of Dosage is studied in Posology. The smallest amount of a chemical needed to cause a change in nature is known as the dose. (Greek: logos = study; posos = amount).
Hahnemann – On Remedy Administration
In the essay on Scarlet Fever, published in 1801, Hahnemann mentions several modes of administering the remedy – he employed opium either externally or internally. Externally, he lay upon the child’s epigastrium a piece of paper moistened with strong tincture of opium; internally, he gave the dose mixed with one to four tablespoonfuls of either water or beer.
Introduction of sugar-globules into homoeopathic practice by Hahnemann dates from the year 1813. He used globules of various sizes, ranging from a mustard-seed to a poppy-seed in size – the former chiefly for olfaction, the latter for ingestion. One drop of alcohol was sufficient to moisten 100, 200 or 500 such globules. He was at one time very particular that this globule should not exceed a poppy-seed in size.
In the 4th edition of Organon he advised the employment of medicines by olfaction. In the fifthedition, he preferred it to every other mode of administering the remedy.
However, the olfaction process later fell into disfavour and in the 6th edition; he went back to giving the medicine dissolved in water, and in divided doses.
In preface to the third part of Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann described the employment of medicines endermically. Earlier, in the Medicine of Experience, he said that the dynamic medicinal power is so pervading, that it is immaterial whether the dissolved medicine enter the stomach, merely remain in mouth, applied to a wound or other part of the body deprived of skin.
Hahnemannian Posology
Hahnemann modified his views on posology mainly in light of clinical experience rather than empty speculations and theories.
Aggravation after administration of homoeopathic similimum was due to the primary action of the remedy. Lesser the material quantity of the medicine, lesser was the aggravation due to primary action. This was the basis of smaller doses initially.
Reduction of material quantity of drug by dilution along with a process of friction seemed to enormously develop the curative drug potential.
The reduction was not uniform in the initial stages and was related to his knowledge and experience with different remedies and diseases. The dose also varied with age, when the reduction was still within the material range.
With the miasmatic theory and the concept of ‘dynamis’, the dose had reduced to an undetectable and infinitesimal small level. Hahnemann potentized the drug to 30C and suggested this as a limit. He believed that even in the realm of infinitesimals, there had to be a limit.
In the later and major part of his practice, his ranges of potencies were 30C, 24C, 12C and 18C.
There is no evidence or writing on the subject of selection of a particular potency for a given case in the later years of his practice. Also, there is no discussion on using a range of potencies in a given case. In the final years of his life, he felt the need for modifying the potentization technique in certain cases. Hence, he modified and altered the centesimal scale. But he did not outright reject the centesimal scale and he was still using those potencies at the time of his death.
Hahnemann felt it necessary to modify the dilution factor [1/500 X 1/100] to reduce aggravation and increase the friction [100 succussions] to make it more potent (cito, tuto et jucunde) – instead of raising the potency infinitely as was happening during his time.
Which potency to select for a given case was never an issue with Hahnemann during the later years of life as it was restricted to the potencies that he regularly prepared by hand.
His main attempts were to adopt a method that would minimise aggravation and speed cure by – olfaction, aqueous split doses, deviation of doses and varying the number of succussion strokes and modification in centesimal scale.
The most important and central issue in Hahnemannian Posology was to achieve CURE
With the least aggravation, and
In the fastest duration of time.
All developments and modifications towards the final years of his life – olfaction, deviated aqueous doses and fifty millesimal scale were steps in this direction.
With the infinitesimal dose, beyond the realm of chemistry and matter, he had already reduced the amount of dose to a minimum. The focus was more on the ADMINISTRATION OF THEDOSE, to suit the sensitivity of the patient.
Discussion – Kentian Posology
Kent – On Liquid Doses
“The remedy works the same whether it is administered in water in spoonful doses or as a few pellets that are dry on the tongue,” stated Kent. Some people have falsely believed that a lesser impact would be achieved by administering one or two tiny pellets, however this is misleading. One pellet has the same power or effect as 10, assuming it operates at all. The potency of a teaspoonful of water diluted with a few pellets will be equivalent to that of a teaspoonful of powder if consumed all at once. Moreover, a teaspoonful of water will not have any more curative or exaggerating effects than a teaspoonful of powder.
Kent – On Olfaction And Local Application
There are no cases that advocate olfaction as a route of administration of the indicated remedy. Also, local application of remedies has no mention in Kent’s records.
Conclusions – Kentian Posology
Kent was the leading proponent of high potencies even though he did not create them.
Potency was most often used, with the 10M being the first prescription drug.
Nearly every kind of disease was treated with strong medications.
His emphasis on employing a variety of potencies to produce a cure, particularly in the therapy of chronic conditions, was his most important contribution to homoeopathic posology.
increase in potencies and use of series at varying degrees of potencies.
Even while he supported using series in degrees, much like octaves in music, he never used the whole range of potencies, from 30 to MM, in a single instance.
Although Kent came to the conclusion that potencies were better ascenting than descending, he began with 10M or greater in the majority of situations.
His publications and cases do not provide clear standards for determining the precise strength for each instance, although potencies 10M or greater were typically chosen.
Kent overemphasized the importance of the original symptoms returning after the first prescription and made it a requirement for the first one to be repeated.
Kent used Fincke’s potencies in the past, but he eventually used his potentizer to make his own medications.
It is noteworthy to mention that the treatments documented by Kent involved the use of medications that were first manufactured by Fincke and then potentized using his potentizer. It is unknown how much and how “high” the Kentian preparations resembled the original Hahnemannian preparations.
Comparative Analysis Of Hahnemannian And Kentian Posology
The potency that Hahnemann used most commonly was 30C, which at the time some of his followers regarded as “high.” Higher potencies were also briefly tried by Hahnemann, but he was not pleased with the results. He was adamantly opposed to the high potencies of the day and had almost referred to 30C as the typical potency. Kent was persuaded by Hahnemann’s 30C, but Fincke’s high potencies produced results.
Hahnemann’s potencies were not very diverse. He was utilizing a few potencies at the finish. Kent had access to a variety of potencies while he worked with Fincke’s concoctions.
Hahnemann never had any trouble deciding what potency to employ in a particular situation. Kent hasn’t really provided any precise instructions on how to choose a potency for a first prescription. However, the instances he presents show a broad range of potencies for the initial prescription.
Hahnemann wrote: “All repetition of any dose of medicine is forbidden as long as the progressive improvement from the medicine administered continues, so long we can take for granted that the duration of the helpful medicine’s action continues.” Kent also followed this to the letter.
Hahnemann restricted the size of the dose to one or two tiny globules, the posology to a single unit dose, and the repetition to the point at which the prior dose’s efficacy expired in the fourth edition of Organon.
Kent adhered to the Organon 4th edition’s “Wait and Watch” strategy. Generally speaking, two doses—or perhaps three—given in the same plane yield the optimum effects, according to Kent. Since the records showed that a third dose at the same strength had no impact, Kent had grown to see it as regular.
According to the 4th edition, Hahnemann would thus repeat the medicine in the same potency only after it had run its course without increasing the potency. On the other hand, Kent would continue to use the power even after it had run its course. However, Kent would employ a potency two or three times before moving up the scale if the treatment was still needed.
Hahnemann: If necessary, the treatment may be repeated at appropriate intervals to expedite the healing process without exacerbating the condition. Only if the cure is produced in a medicinal solution and administered in a “split dose” can this new approach be used. If the patient is improving with the medication without experiencing any worsening, the treatment may be repeated at appropriate intervals.
By doing this, the length of the cure can be cut in half or less compared to the standard dry dosage approach.
However, Kent stated that the outcome is always the same regardless of whether the medication is administered as spoonfuls in water or as a few dry pellets applied to the tongue.
REFERENCES
- Organon of Medicine – Samuel Hahnemann.
- Goel S., M.D. (Hom) – Art and Science of Homoeopathic Pharmacy – 2nd Enlarged and Revised edition – Mind Technologies, Mumbai
- Haehl Richard, M.D. – Samuel Hahnemann – His Life and Work – B. Jain (P) ltd., New Delhi, Reprint 1989: pages 310-343
- Hahnemann Samuel M.D. – Organon of Medicine – Translated with Preface by William Boericke, M.D. – 6th edition – B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
- Hahnemann Samuel M.D. – The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homoeopathic Cure – Translated by Prof. louis H. Tafel – Jain Publishing Co., New Delhi, Reprint 1987
- Kent J. T., M.D. – New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts – Reprint Edn., New Delhi, B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1991:
- Sarkar B. K., M.B., D.M.S. – Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann with an Introduction and Commentary on the Text – Birla Publications, Delhi, Ninth Revised edition 2003-2004: pages 516-624
Dr Anjana Kumari.
Assistant professor Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy
Nootan homeopathic Medical college (under Sankalchand Patel University) visnager
Gujarat, India.
Be the first to comment