The Action of Medicines in the System. Frederick William Headland
the most illustrious of the early English exponents of the humoral system, was probably the first in this country who clearly elaborated this view of the action of medicines by elimination; which has been more or less approved, though not so universally applied, by all who have lived since his time. Agreeing with Stahl in his view of the advantages of the "expectant" treatment of diseases, he thought it better to rely on the "vis medicatrix naturæ," than to make rash or violent attempts at a cure. He maintained that what we call a disease was in fact "no more than a vigorous effort of nature to throw off the morbific matter, and thus recover the patient."[14] He proposed, therefore, that our efforts should be directed to assist nature to procure the evacuation of a poison, promoting its elimination by acting on the various secretions—as by purgatives, diaphoretics and such medicines. For he had noticed that in fevers and febrile disorders the crisis or turning-point was generally accompanied or preceded by an increase in one or more of these secretions, and he regarded this as an indication of the treatment to be pursued in all such cases. "That," said he, "appears to be the best method of curing acute diseases, which, after nature has pitched upon a certain kind of evacuation, assists her in promoting it, and so necessarily contributes to cure the distemper."[15] He further proposed, that in the treatment of chronic diseases, when nature herself was slow in procuring this evacuation, we should seek for specific medicines, by which we might assist her in doing so, and thus effectually expel the morbific matter. This theory was reasonable and natural compared to those that followed it; but it was nearly extinguished and forgotten amid the war of opinions which was subsequently kindled by the aphorisms of Boerhaave. About this time we find Dr. Pitcairn mixing up this idea with his mechanical notions, in a treatise "On the Cure of Fevers by Evacuation." Huxham also, in 1729, maintained similar principles.
At the present day a more enlarged view is adopted. It is admitted that we may often assist these attempts of nature at a cure, and do good by the use, when thus needed, of evacuant medicines; but at the same time we must allow that there are many other advantageous modes of treatment—that we may sometimes cut short a disease in the blood, or relieve a disorder by controlling vascular or nervous excitement, without resorting to elimination at all.
f. M. Broussais was one of the first who rightly maintained that many medicines were of use by means of an alterative or revulsive action, by producing a distinct effect which diverted the attention of the system from the disease. His followers have classed remedies under three heads—as Stimulants, Debilitants, and Revulsives. He maintained also some other peculiar ideas.
Blood-medicines are commonly termed Alteratives, from the notion that they divert or alter the original disease by setting up in the system a peculiar process of their own. The term Revulsive is especially applied to medicines which produce a powerful local effect, and are supposed so to occupy the attention of the system as to tend to cure the disease which formerly engaged it. Counter-irritants externally, and emetics among internal medicines, are generally admitted as revulsives.
The idea of revulsion is a prominent feature in the arrangement of medicines adopted by Dr. Schultz, of Berlin, who adds to the above, Expectorants, Purgatives, Diuretics, and Sudorifics. He divides medicines into Biolytics, tending to dissolve life and structure; Anabiotics, which tend to stimulate the same; and Agonistics, tending to produce a "defensive" process, and acting by revulsion. Each class is again divided into those which affect the organs and nutrition in general; those which act on the blood; and those which particularly influence the nerves. I will give examples of each.
| Schultz's Classification. | ||
| A. Biolytica. (Depressents.) | ||
| 1. Plastilytica. (Mercury, Alteratives.) | ||
| 2. Hæmatolytica. (Acids, Alkalies.) | ||
| 3. Neurolytica. (Sedatives.) | ||
| B. Anabiotica. (Excitants.) | ||
| 1. Plastibiotica. (Astringents.) | ||
| 2. Hæmatobiotica. (Diffusible stimulants.) | ||
| 3. Neurobiotica. (Opium, Strychnia.) | ||
| C. Agonistica. (Revulsives.) | ||
| 1. Plastagonistica. (Purgatives, etc.) | ||
| 2. Hæmatagonistica. (Irritants.) | ||
| 3. Neuragonistica. (Emetics, Expectorants.) | ||
These divisions are again subdivided with great minuteness, according to their supposed operation. And yet it will be seen that, in spite of the hard names, there is an admirable simplicity in this arrangement. So many and so various are the statements made, and so plausible the theories involved, that I cannot accord to it here a fair consideration. I must object to it, however, that there is too much generalization, and, what is more important, that many medicines may cure diseases without necessarily causing either excitation or depression or acting distinctly by revulsion. The only principles of action admitted here are these three, the same which are adopted by the disciples of Broussais. To suppose that medicines acting on the glands are only of use as revulsives, that they have no influence on the blood, and are never engaged in purging the system of peccant or morbid matter, is surely incorrect in theory. Medicines of the first class, when given in proper dose and in fit cases, are not engaged in destroying organization, nor is it invariably the case that such remedies as Mercury, Acids, and Alkalies act even as depressents, when given in moderation.
Further, the lines of distinction are too arbitrary, and drawn with too much precision. The variations in the actions of different medicines are too many and too great to be thus easily accounted for, and we do not know enough about many of them to be able to define their operation so exactly. And there is no explanation at all given here of the special tendencies of some remedies, by which we are enabled to cure a great number of disorders.
g. The Hippocratic maxim was a step towards a correct solution of the therapeutical operations of remedial agents. The humoral theory of Sydenham, and the threefold action supposed by Broussais, were further advances in the right direction. But these views were all too confined. Correct as far as they extended, they did not embrace the whole range of the subject; for it is impossible to explain by any one of them the operations of all medicines.
Biassed by the satisfactory observation which he had made of the modus operandi of particular medicines, and misled by the insufficiency of his knowledge, each of these writers was tempted to apply the view which was applicable to a certain set to all remedies alike. Once persuaded of its sufficiency, he easily found arguments by which to fortify both himself and others against any subsequent objections.
The right course lies in a combination of these various theories, embracing what is true and discarding what is erroneous in each of them, and supplying what may seem to be wanting in the whole. None of these ideas being by itself perfect, the sounder reasoners of the present day are driven to suppose that there are various different ways in which medicines may counteract, and thus cure, different diseases. This counteraction is distinct from contrary action; it may be direct or indirect; and it allows of any action in a medicine, tending to restore health, except an effect similar to the disease. Such a view was adopted by Dr. Cullen, the well known Nosologist, who lectured at Edinburgh towards the close of the last century. He discarded all special and confined views of the operation of medicines, believing that they acted in many and various ways, all of which tended to the same end—to counteract the influence of the disorder. This is well exemplified in his admirable directions for the treatment of fever, in which he enjoined the use of a number of different remedies, varied according to the nature of the case, and progress of the symptoms.[16]
Dr. Pereira, the most learned and acute of living English writers on this subject, appears, like many others, to prefer a wide explanation of this description.
On such views my own statements are based. I suppose