Reintegrating Dynamic Healing In Surgical Pathology: A Homoeopathic Reappraisal of Structural Disease
Abstract
This article explores the evolving relationship between surgery and homoeopathy through philosophical, historical, and clinical perspectives, illustrating how these two disciplines can enrich one another in contemporary practice. Although surgical science that has its roots in ancient times and taken its path into a highly sophisticated technical field, homoeopathy continues to remind us that visible pathology often arises from deeper, dynamic disturbances within the vital force. Drawing on the foundational ideas of Dr. Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann and the later contributions of D.J. T. Kent, Dr. H.A. Roberts, Dr. C. Burnett, and Dr. E. Carleton, this paper takes us into how many conditions labelled “surgical” may also reflect systemic imbalance that warrants internal, individualized treatment. While surgery remains essential when mechanical correction is required, optimal recovery, prevention of recurrence, and restoration of overall well-being frequently depend on dynamic and therapeutic support. Homoeopathic principles alongside modern surgical understanding, this article proposes an integrative model that provides a broad perspective on the therapeutic possibilities and reinforces the momentum of growth in relevance of homoeopathy within today’s healthcare landscape.
Introduction
Current healthcare care is characterized by increasingly complex surgical interventions alongside a growing recognition that many patients require care extending beyond structural correction alone. Despite remarkable advances in operative procedures and techniques, the majority continue to struggle with delayed healing, persistent functional disturbances, or recurrent pathology after surgery paving way to new diseases and complications. In this realm of health care, homoeopathy offers a valuable interpretative framework, viewing disease not merely as a physical manifestation but as the expression of a deeper dynamic imbalance.
This article positions itself within the discipline of homoeopathy by revisiting foundational principles in light of present clinical challenges. It emphasizes that surgical pathology frequently arises from underlying disturbances of the vital force, which must be addressed through individualized remedy selection if long-term recovery is to be achieved.
Tracing the Philosophical Shift from Technique to Therapeutic Wholeness Surgery, once seen simply as crafted as a mechanical art of cutting and stitching, now has been evolved into a sophisticated scientific discipline with an increasingly integrative outlook. The Sushruta Samhita (around 600 BCE) describes advanced procedures such as rhinoplasty and lithotomy, but these were never treated as isolated technical procedures. Instead, they were woven as a part of the Ayurvedic system, where surgery is only a strand in a vast therapeutic system, to restore balance among the doshas and thereby ensure the free flow of prana that is essential for a healthy life [1].
A similar perspective shaped classical Greek medicine. Great Philosophers like Hippocrates and Galen regarded surgery as a last choice, to be used only when a gentler way of healing by internal remedies failed. For them, the surgeon’s knife was not a tool of dominance but a servant to the larger goal of re-establishing harmony within the humoral system. [2] By the medieval era, medicine had split into two distinct professions. Physicians who were dealing with internal disorders were guided by theory and humoral reasoning, while surgeons often barber-surgeons handled external injuries, abscesses, and trauma. This division reflected a deeper intellectual contrast: physicians used to view diseases as systemic disorders, while surgeons treated it as localized or by local treatment [3].
It wasn’t until the 19th century that surgery gained a solid scientific footing. Significant contributions such as Morton’s use of anaesthesia, Lister’s antiseptic techniques, and Virchow’s cellular pathology transformed the field, making operations safer, more precise, and central to medical practice [4]. Many practitioners have firmly held onto the belief that surgical problems had its roots from wider systemic imbalances. This perspective from ancient and early modern traditions, resonates with today’s integrative approaches, which view surgical diseases as not merely a local malfunction but as part of a broader physiological, emotional, or environmental disturbance. From this angle, the story of surgery is more than a tale of technical progress and quick fixes. It is also a gradual return to holistic principles, reminding us that surgical instruments are tools of healing, not the philosophy of healing itself [5,6,7].
Beyond the Scalpel: Homoeopathic Insights into Surgical Pathology and Healing [8] From Organon of Medicine §11-16, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann explains that disease originates from dynamic derangement of vital force as functional disturbance leading to structural pathology. Chronic diseases (as per §78–81) when not treated dynamically, progress into pathological manifestations requiring surgery. Homoeopathy is a holistic system that integrates a path of healing which is not to suppress local application or remove the product, but to restore harmony of the vital force, preventing recurrence or metastasis.
In §185-203 of the Organon of Medicine, external growths, swellings, ulcers, and other local affections are not regarded as independent or merely superficial diseases. They are understood as visible expressions of an internal dynamic disorder of the vital force. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann strongly opposed the old school’s view that such local maladies could exist in isolation, describing it as an “absurd and ruinous” notion. Unless a lesion results directly from a recent external injury, every external manifestation reflects internal dyscrasia, often rooted in miasmatic disturbance such as psora, sycosis, or syphilis. Hence, the true physician’s aim is not to remove or suppress the external lesion but to restore harmony in the whole organism through a remedy chosen on the totality of symptoms.
Surgical or mechanical intervention, according to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, has its utility to heal only when a purely external cause or mechanical obstruction exists such as fractures, foreign bodies, haemorrhage, or structural deformities threatening life or with functional disturbances. In these situations, surgical aid serves merely to remove physical impediments to cure. However, even after such intervention, the dynamic equilibrium of the vital force must be restored through internal homoeopathic treatment to prevent recurrence, suppuration, or systemic disturbance. Thus, surgery does not constitute the ultimate cure; rather, it supports and aids the fundamental dynamic process through which true healing occurs.
Growths, tumors, and other external morbid formations which are not traumatic in origin, are therefore considered as local expressions of internal disease. Their removal without curing the internal disorder may lead to metastasis or the reappearance of similar affections elsewhere, as the vital force seeks new outlets for its disturbed state.
Genuine cure in such cases arises only when the internal miasmatic imbalance is corrected by a similimum that resonates with the patient’s total of symptoms. Individualistic approach of internal medicine removes the external pathology but also re-establishes general health and vitality, fulfilling Hahnemann’s ideal of “cure which is rapid, gentle, and permanent.”
Pathology represents the end stage of the disease, the visible “ultimum moriens,” where function precedes structure and disturbance precedes disease; thus, artificial correction through surgery merely removes the effect, not the cause.
The Limits of the Knife: Homoeopathic Stalwarts on Systemic Origins of Surgical Disease Dr. James Tyler Kent [9]
Homoeopathy, when rightly understood, extends far beyond the mere administration of minute doses; it is founded on natural law and vital order, as emphasized by Dr. J.T. Kent. He taught that the physician is not just a prescriber, he is a restorer of health who must be aware and observant enough to remove all causes disturbing the harmony of life. For Kent, the law of cure reflects a deeper divine meaning that governs both man and nature. The vital force is the central authority maintaining this order, and disease arises only when this inner harmony is disturbed. Hence, just by focussing on the senses and perceiving a disease manifestation that requires surgery leads to confusion, as seen in materialistic medicine.
In surgical cases, Kent’s philosophy becomes especially significant. Homoeopathy acknowledges the necessity of surgery when mechanical correction is required, yet it also focusses to restore balance in the vital economy before and after operation. Cure always takes place with the aid of vital energies. By harmonizing the internal state through the law of similars, it helps prevent suppuration, reduce shock, hasten repair, and support recovery. The apparent cause may be a local lesion needing surgery, but the fundamental cause lies in the disturbed vital force that allowed the pathology to develop. When both act in their rightful spheres, healing reaches its fullest scope from the innermost centre to the outermost circumference.
To “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” as Kent advises, is to recognize surgery as the art of mechanical correction, while reserving to homoeopathy the higher art of restoring the inner law of health. In this balanced partnership, each system works within its rightful sphere, surgery addressing what is structurally necessary, and homoeopathy re-establishing the dynamic order of the vital force.
Dr. H.A. Roberts [10]
In his philosophy The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy, Dr. H. A. Roberts affirms that health is restored only when all symptoms disappear, for disease is not identical with its physical causes, lesions, or products. He locates the true domain of homoeopathy in the dynamic sphere where disturbances of the vital energy originate, asserting that the similar remedy acts directly upon this deranged force rather than on the physical plane. When structural changes become irreversible, Dr. Roberts insists that genuine cure occurs only through restoration of vital harmony. The indicated medicine may even retard or reverse morbid processes, aiding absorption, healing, and functional recovery. Removing diseased organs does not touch the fundamental disturbance of the vital force but merely eliminates the visible outcome of disease. Suppressive or mechanical methods such as iodine, antiseptics, or removal of organs supresses most tormenting symptoms but drive the inward disorder deeper, weakening natural resistance of the body. His discussion of miasms highlights sycosis as a potent destructive influence, which when suppressed can lead to manifestations often intensify, and thus contributing to chronic degenerative conditions such as arthritis deformans, psoriasis, and certain malignant disorders.
Robert advocates for administering the indicates homoeopathic remedy pre and post-surgery instead of relying on sedatives or narcotics. His reasoning is that the similimum alleviates pain, reduces the physiological impact of shock, safeguards mental acuity, and maintains the integrity of the symptom picture. He further stresses the universal applicability of the law of similars, affirming that dynamic treatment is capable of restoring order in cases where the limitations of mechanical correction are apparent.
Dr. Compton Burnett [11 12]
Dr Burnett’s contributions to homoeopathy offer a compelling cross-section at the surgical conditions, thereby challenging the ideas and concepts that structural pathology had weaved through, that may invariably require operative intervention. In Curability of Tumours by Medicines, Dr. Burnett presented clinical cases where tumors, abscesses, and glandular swellings have very well responded to remedies like Thuja, Conium, and Hydrastis, demonstrating that potentized medicines could influence even hardened tissue states. Burnett focussed on the need to address the patient’s constitutional and miasmatic symptoms, taking surgical lesions as expressions of the deeper systemic disturbances. His organopathic approach, that is explained in texts such as Diseases of the Spleen and Fifty Reasons for Being a Homoeopath, shows the efficacy of indicated remedies in managing conditions where conventional medical interventions had lost their ground.
Burnett’s idea of organopathy highlights the use of remedies that act directly on specific organs, where anatomical site of illness is considered rather than relying solely on the patient’s overall constitutional profile. He illustrated this method with examples such as Ceanothus americanus for disorders of the spleen, Carduus marianus for the conditions of liver, and Hydrastis canadensis for diseases affecting mucosal tissues. Burnett explains that when these medicines are chosen with an understanding of the patient’s underlying miasmatic tendencies, they help in restoring vitality and balance. By introducing anatomical perspective into homoeopathic treatment, organopathy complements Hahnemann’s principle of the vital force and establishes a remarkable link in restoring health based on sphere of action of remedies, in between classical homoeopathy and modern integrative medical practice.
Dr. John Henry Clark
Dr. J. H. Clarke’s article titled as “Appendicitis from a Homoeopathic Physician’s Point of View,” [13] explains how the successful use of homeopathic prescribing helps in the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.
Clarke documented a case of a 10-year-old male patient who presented with the classical symptoms such as high fever, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain aggravated by movement, and marked tenderness in the right groin. Clarke managed the acute inflammatory stage with remedies such as Bryonia and Mercurius corrosivus as indicated. As the patient’s symptoms changed, based on symptom totality new indicated remedies came up , shifting to remedies including Nux vomica, Opium, and Mercurius solubilis. The boy full recovered by a progressive decrease in fever, return of appetite, resolution of tenderness, and normal bowel functions without a need of surgical intervention.
Another notable case of a 15-year-old boy with a history of recurrent appendicitis was explained by Dr. Clarke. The acute presentation included headache, vomiting, pronounced right-iliac tenderness, and pain exacerbated by movement. In this specific instance, the single remedy Lachesis 30 was sufficient to manage the entire course of the illness.
Dr. Edmund Carleton’s Homoeopathy in Medicine and Surgery (1913) [14] Edmund Carleton’s Homoeopathy in Medicine and Surgery (1913) stands as a landmark text demonstrating how pure Hahnemannian principles apply even in conditions that seem to demand surgical intervention. Drawing on over forty years of practice, Carleton shows that every disease medical or surgical must be approached through the totality of symptoms and the individuality of the patient, not by local pathology alone. Through his clinical examples, Carleton articulated the practical therapeutic efficacy of homoeopathy in surgical conditions, thereby enriching a previously neglected area of the literature. He clarified that although surgery is necessary for mechanical correction, authentic healing fundamentally stems from the internal dynamic action stimulated by the carefully selected similimum.
Dr. Carleton’s clinical observations highlight on action of individualized homeopathic medicine in the management of surgical conditions. He challenged the view that disorders such as gallstones or appendicitis are merely mechanical problems that requires removal, arguing instead that they often reflect deeper systemic imbalances. By approaching these conditions as expressions of a disturbed vital force, Carleton demonstrated that homoeopathy could support recovery, reduce the need for invasive procedures, and complement surgery when it is required. Carleton utilized specific remedies (e.g., Belladonna, Bryonia, Chelidonium) to alleviate symptoms, encourage healing, and avert recurrence, reserving operative intervention exclusively for severe structural crises like suppuration or gangrene. He maintained that even when surgery is necessary for instance, in trauma the indicated homeopathic remedy (e.g., Arnica, Calendula) is vital for post-operative care, mitigating shock, preventing infection (sepsis), and accelerating tissue regeneration.
Furthermore, he documented successful, permanent resolution of conditions including hernia, hemorrhoids, nephrolithiasis, and fissure in ano using constitutional remedies designed to correct underlying vital imbalance and tissue fragility. This comprehensive clinical body of work emphasizes his guiding philosophy: mechanical correction is subordinate to the restoration of the patient’s fundamental vital harmony.
Conclusion
Homoeopathy does not deny the necessity of surgery when mechanical correction is unavoidable, but it seeks to restore order in the vital economy before and after surgical intervention. Dynamic healing restores the harmony of life where surgery ends, Homoeopathy begins. The homoeopath should work not against surgery, but above it and beyond it to bring order to the life-force that governs all healing. In doing so, homoeopathy becomes not an alternative to surgery, but it’s true complement, fulfilling the mission of medicine: to restore order, preserve life, and sustain harmony from the innermost centre to the outermost circumference.
The collective insights of ancient physicians and the homoeopathic stalwarts affirm that structural pathology represents the final stage of a deeper, dynamic disruption of the vital force. While surgery is essential for rectifying mechanical defects, it cannot restore health unless the internal disharmony that produced the pathology is addressed. Homoeopathy fulfills this role by guiding the vital force back to equilibrium, thereby preventing recurrence and completing the curative process. “Surgery removes what is formed; Homoeopathy prevents its formation.” In this integrated view, the two disciplines function not as opposites but as complementary partners uniting mechanical skill with dynamic healing to achieve true restoration of health.
Summary
This article traced the evolution of surgery from ancient traditions, such as Sushruta’s integrative approach to the refined precision of the modern operative science, and position of homoeopathy within this broader historical arc. It highlighted Dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s principle on local lesions which are considered as expressions of deeper dynamic disturbance and cannot be cured through mechanical means alone. The contributions of Dr Kent, H.A. Roberts, Dr. Burnett, Dr. J H Clarke, and Dr. Carleton further illustrated how many conditions considered “surgical” reflect internal imbalance that responds to individualized homoeopathic intervention. Together, these perspectives show that homoeopathy not only supports surgical care when necessary but also reduces the need for invasive measures and ensures recovery by acting at the vital level where true healing originates.
REFERENCES
1. Hishagratna KK. An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press; 1907.
2. Nutton V. Ancient Medicine. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2013.
3. Siraisi NG. Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1997. 4. Ellis H. A History of Surgery. London: Greenwich Medical Media; 2001. 5. Mukherjee A. The evolution of surgery: From open to robotic procedures [Internet]. Kolkata: Aloy Mukherjee; 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 14]. Available from: https://example.com
6. Rogers K. History of surgery: A timeline [Internet]. Encyclopedia Britannica; [date unknown] [cited 2025 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com 7. David J. The evolution and advancements in surgical techniques [Internet]. Surgery: Current Research. 2023;13(3):438. [cited 2025 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.iomcworld.com/open-access/the-evolution-and-advancements-in surgical-techniques.pdf
8. Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. 6th ed. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; Reprint ed.
9. Kent JT. Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2002.
10. Roberts HA. The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 1993.
11. Burnett JC. Tumours of the Breast and Their Cure by Medicines. London: Homoeopathic Publishing Co.; 1899.
12. Burnett JC. Diseases of the Liver. London: Homoeopathic Publishing Co.; 1891. 13. Clarke JH. Appendicitis from a homoeopathic physician’s point of view. Homoeopathic World. London: Homoeopathic Publishing Company; 1905. 14. Carleton E. Homoeopathy in Medicine and Surgery. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel; 1913.
Co- Authors :
Dr Darsha K, Post Graduate Scholar, Dept. of Organon of Medicine, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata.
Dr. Sherin P Jame, Post Graduate Scholar, Dept. of Organon of Medicine, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata.
