A case of uncertain diagnosis
by Dr. Charette

During the War, finding myself, in 1918, in a large city of the Midi, I was called to see a young son of a high official, who had been, for five days in an alarming condition, and in the care of three doctors, whom I found at the bedside, they being far from accord in diagnosis and treatment. This child of seven years had presented for several days, a light fever, then the temperature shot up to 41 °C (106 °F), at the same moment his mind became obscured, soon becoming comatose. When I examined him at 10 a.m. the temperature was 40.8 °C (about 105°F) pulse 138, face very red, covered with sweat, and with complete loss of muscular action; bowels stopped since the onset of the disease. Analysis of urine and the diazzo-reaction had been negative. But on raising the eyelids, which were completely closed, I saw that the pupils, in a darkened room, were contracted in extreme myosis. After a complete examination of all organs, which revealed nothing more, I asked the opinion of my honourable confreres.

The oldest, a fine specimen, in his eighties, answered first and said: “I have given calomel and santonine without results, and I conclude that we have before us what we called in my young days, a somnolent fever, now acetate of ammonia appears to be indicated.”

The second doctor, aged 50 years, was of the opinion: “I thought at first it was a paludism, and I prescribed, without success, injections of quinine. It is evident to me now, that this child is commencing an eruptive fever, and I propose cold baths (!) to stimulate the appearance of the eruption and to combat the fever.”

The Benjamin of the troupe, fresh from college, made two diagnoses in place of one, “It is a typhoid,” declared he, “or else a meningitis; we must take a sample of his blood, and make a lumbar puncture.”

“My dear colleagues,” said I, in my turn, “I would like to believe that one of you, at least, was correct, but I would be embarrassed to say which; as it is not impossible, nevertheless, that all three of you are wrong, I believe it is useless that I make a seventh diagnosis, lethargic encephalitis, for example, which might be equally wrong, so I prefer to say modestly, that I do not know at all what is wrong with our patient. But I do know that which is better, this is, I know that which will cure the case surely.”

They regarded me with anxiety, believing that I was delirious, when I went on to say: “It is Opium given in minute doses.”

Desirous to show them that Homeopathy had nothing mysterious about it, I added: “If you will read your Manquat, you will recognize that I recount, as dominant symptoms, the intoxication by Opium; the obstinate constipation, the sleep, more and more profound, the coma, the extreme narrowing of the pupils, that is to say, the complete picture of all the symptoms presented by our patient. In virtue of Similia Similibus, which is all that you know of Homeopathy, I propose to prescribe Opium. But, as the ordinary doses cannot fail to aggravate the state of the patient, we will give him very small doses; two drops of the tincture in a glass of water of which we will give him a coffeespoonful every four hours. If, at the end of twelve hours, we have not obtained any results, I leave this innocent to your good care, and wash my hands of that which must occur.”

Opium was given following my prescription. After the sixth spoonful, the pupils began to dilate; then the infant had a stool at 5 a.m.; the following morning recognition returned, and the fever fell to 38.1°C  (about 100°F). In four days the cure was complete.

The overjoyed parents, believing it was a miracle, did not know how to express their gratitude. I was abashed because the “miracle” had not been difficult to accomplish. I had all the less merit because I knew of two absolutely analogous cases, published, one by Dr. Gallavardin (Lyons) and the other by Dr. Favre (Toulouse) (see Propagateur de l’Homeopathie of Lyons, Gallavardin, 190, page 180; and Favre, 1909, page 119). Nothing was missing, the narrowing of the pupils, coma, constipation, nor the cure by infinitesimals of Opium.”

If you were to have an absolutely “similar” case, would you not value this evidence? It is offered freely and eagerly.