Comparative Materia Medica

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

In order to master the art of prescription, one should not only learn materia medica but should also be able to differentiate between remedies. Comparative Materia Medica is one of the finer ways of understanding the distinct nature of each remedy and is also a step towards reducing the probability of error in our prescription. This work is one of the classical works on comparison of drugs for their action on various organs and conditions. This book has comparisons at various levels; beginning with the differentiation of remedies for various conditions, comparisons of remedies which usually come up together for various clinical conditions, comparisons of remedies of the same stock where different remedies of same group have been discussed and the comparison of allied remedies is made. The last chapter on therapeutic hints is beneficial for bed-side reference. It's worth to read and is like preparing for a sure-shot prescription.

Dr Farrington was a member of the State Society and joined the American Institute of Homoeopathy in 1872. In 1884, the institute appointed him as a member of its Editorial Consulting Committee on the new Cyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesis. In all these tasks, he was an assiduous and conscientious worker. In debates, he was an active speaker and logical in argument. bear the mark of a superior mind. Barely three years.

His writings after his graduation, he was writing about the philosophical elucidation of drug prescribing indicating a great depth of knowledge. His articles were published in the American Journal of Homoeopathic Materia Medica, the Hahnemannian Monthly, the North American Journal of Homoeopathy and various other journals. His other invaluable contributions to the field include 'Lectures on Clinical Materia Medica', 'Lesser Writings' and 'Therapeutics Pointers'.

It is not always, in the present state of our knowledge, that we can give absolute, characteristic contrasts.

It is easy to differentiate where remedies diverge; but difficult to nicely discriminate where similar remedies converge, until their symptoms are almost identical; and yet, just here individualization is most needed.

Failures arise first from defective judgment; secondly from imperfect provings, thirdly from imperfect clinical reports: fourthly from an imperfect comprehension of what symptoms should be compared.

Symptoms of minor import in the study of a drug in an individual may become quite characteristic when employed it comparison. Thus, Belladonna causes tonsillitis tending to- wards suppuration. This is certainly of less moment than the color, side and difficulty in swallowing water. But when compared with a medicine like Apis, which seldom causes suppuration of the tonsils, the contrast proves serviceable.

But with all their errors and imperfections, the comparisons have one use to perform-the main purpose for which they were transferred from private papers, intended for personal discipline, into printed papers. This use is to stimulate the study of Comparative Materia Medica.

We m determine which remedies agree, and which disagree, we must know why some remedies, though similar in symptoms, are inimical in relation. We must distinguish between medicines, which are antidotes, and others which are complementary. Then we may be better prepared to systematize Materia Medica, to abridge it without violence and to place it where it belongs. the crown of science.