Missing The Mark Of Our Mission
NATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOMOEOPATHY 1999 Nov / Dec VOL VIII NO 6.
Dr Pran G Chowdhury
Approaching the end of 20th century, even 200 years after of birth Homoeopathy, we are still not conscious about our MISSION, which Dr C F S Hahnemann aptly marked in the year of 1810. In the first aphorism of his 1st edition of Organon namely "Organon of the Rational Art of Healing", he says: "The Physician has no higher aim than to make sick folk well, to pursue what is called the art of Healing" (translated by Dr C W Wheeler). But the same aphorism translated by Dr R E Dudgeon: "The Physician has no higher object than to make sick men well, to cure as it is termed". Thus, both the translation of this aphorism imply clearly that Dr Hahnemann cautioned us regarding our AIMS & OBJECTS and also gave us the priority to the Physician's function of curing the sick.
In the 2nd (1819) edition of Organon namely "Organon of the healing Art" as well as 3rd (1824), 4th (1829), 5th (1833) editions, Dr Hahnemann stated in the first aphorism seems to have taken a more dogmatic turn which has served to confuse many of our stalwarts. Here also we can tally the different translation of the above aphorism. As per Dr Wesselhoeft, we read as "The Physician's highest and only CALLING is to restore health to the sick which is called Healing". Whereas Dr Dudgeon translates it thus "The physician's high and only MISSION is to restore the sick to health, cure as it is termed". And finally Dr W Boericke's translated the same aphorism of the 6th (1921) edition of Organon namely "Organon of the Medicine' thus: "the physician's high and only MISSION is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."
* 1) The last edition of "Organon of Medicine" completed by the end of 1841, which is carefully revised and corrected by Dr Hahnemann hiomself but come to light posthumously.
It is to be noted that both Dr Dudgeon and Dr Boericke use the word MISSION during translation whereas Dr Wesselhoeft use the word CALLING. The term mission is taken by many as lending a religious favour to Dr Hahnemann's writing, but the term calling means -the professional duty of a physician. And the word ONLY use as adjective by each translator is apt to marrow down the function of a physician to thereof a therapeutist to the exclusion of his other function.
Dr Hahnemann alarms us by apprehending such misunderstanding and takes pains to clarify his viewpoint in the foot-note to this first aphorism. Thus: "His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypothesis concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the invisible interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate causes (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sight in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough. It is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and cure."
Although the translating style from German to English is different but our sole mission is fully depend on the second aphorism, under the highest ideal of cure. Let us see the criteria for an ideal cure? Dr. Hahnemann stated thus: "The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable and most harmless way, on easily comprehensive principles".
But alas! We the mongrel sect, as per doctrine of Homoeopathy, follow neither aphorism No1 nor aphorism No 2, moreover trying to pollute Homoeopathy towards our torch-bearers since Dr. Hahnemann's time. Basically we wish to establish the miracle in our clinics and hospitals by hook or by crook; to restore the sick to health by palliation/suppression, though it is harmed. Naturally our highest mode of treatment is hurried, vague and temporary relief of the suffering and artificially produces the drug disease or incurable diseases in its whole extent, in the quickest, most dishonestly corruptive principles.
Now-a-days Homoeopathy is widely spread amongst general population and also accepted by the developing countries as an alternative method of treatment. Apparently we see the development and flourishing of Homoeopathy in the world but the prevailing atmosphere of Homoeopathy is very, very gloomy. Because our dignitary officials of Pharmacopoeia committee; CCH (Central Council of Homoeopathy); CCRH (Central Council of Research Homoeopathy); Head of teaching institutions and hospitals; Directors of HPC (Homoeopathic Pharmaceutical Company); Drug Control (Central/State) Committee; National and International Homoeopathic Organizations and also some well established Homoeo Practitioners have had no botheration to implementing the basic principles of Homoeopathy. Better to say they were/are acting towards digging the burial of Homoeopathy.
This situation compels us to miss the mark of our mission and finally achieve cure rather healthy person, which becomes more and more sick. Is it not a criminal offence to perform such quackery? At last but not the least, I like to re-call our great master's quotation: "When we have to do with an art whose aim is saving human lives, any neglect to make ourselves thorough masters of it becomes a crime"
