Several years ago, in one of the I.H.M. colleges, I was approached by one of the teachers regarding her sons health. This particular teacher, was known for her affection and affiliation to a well known “guru” homoeopath on the scene, and had taken her son to him several times without a successful resolution to the problem. As resolution had not been found, she then took her son to another well known homoeopath who consulted with him and then prescribed the SAME medicine as the previous practitioner with the same negative result.
After listening to her story where she explained that she had been told that her son was “not ready to receive his health back” and that “he was holding on to his sickness”, she was desperate on his behalf. I asked her if she would be willing for him to be a patient in the training clinic with a video link to the class below. She accepted.
Now this college had a complete 3rd year intake from another college. It was a struggle to redirect them from the metaphysical training they had been subjected to, and I wanted to give them a taste of being a practitioner. This particular teacher had come with them from the college, as part of the package deal.
I took the case with a very articulate and precise 13 year old who recounted his problems. I took about an hour to get the details, thanked him and off he went to the kitchens for food and a drink….
I walked down to the classroom and looked at the assembled 16 students, who all had notes and were busily discussing the case with each other….. not the case, more the emotional expression of his comments, more the allegorical extractions from his sentences. I realised what a problem I had on my hands.
“Ok guys, lets do this” I said, “Lets go to the kitchen and have a break and a snack and then come back and discuss it.” As they got to the door I said “oh, one more thing, XXXX (the patient) will be there, please do NOT ask him any questions regarding his health.” So off we all went.
Thirty minutes later we reassembled in the classroom. I set the ground rules for this analysis.
“This young man has been to two of the country’s most admired prescribers. They made a judgement that he is not ready to be cured, and so far he has not been. Here we have a a patient with a skin problem that desperately requires alleviation. As practitioners, do you think we are wasting our time in treating this person as others have said, or do you think we as a class can do something?”
One of the female practitioners said “well we probably are wasting our time. If xxxx (guru practitioner) failed then the boy cannot be cured“. I asked her if she wished to be excused and could go home early, I said to the class, “in fact if any of you think he cannot be cured or think its not worth having a go, then its ok, I would treat the boy privately and we would not worry about it”
Curiousity will always get an enquiring student, plus the desire to be part of a group that might just be good enough to beat the teachers in their own field. So we settled down to take the case. I let them discuss among themselves for 15 minutes until they began looking at me as they ran out of ideas…
“So” I said, “15 minutes has passed and I have not heard one single reference to his problem, just hypothetical assumptions and a direction that is leading to the same medicine that was prescribed previously……THAT DID NOT WORK! If you want to help this boy then you had better start applying what you have been taught this term and find a medicine that does work”
I split the class in to 3 groups. they appointed a group director and began to look at the case, symptom by symptom. I did not comment on the case. After an hour, each group had begun to establish areas of importance, and were moving on to look at aggravations, at locations, at sensations. We had another break, and this time in the break, it was very much more subdued as each one was thinking and contemplating.
On return, I asked each group what they had come up with. I recall that as the reasoning was brought out, one or two students said ” no, that is not correct, this is what happened and this was the reaction and what has just been stated is an assumption”………. it made me smile as I recall this, because the switch had been turned on for a few of them. Over the next hour, the group honed the choice of medicines down to Two, one of which was the failed prescription. We took a break then again.
On return, I told them to forget the failed prescription, and try and see why the other came up and whether or not they can justify giving it. One of the students, who was a very quiet and shy woman generally, asked if she could say something. She went on to describe in absolute clear and detailed terms the route she had taken to ascertain the prescription, and gave a logical reasoned and well thought out analysis of his reaction to heat resulting in epistaxis every time, and how she could not a find anything in the skin symptoms to contra- indicate it. Another student, described a very clear picture of the skin condition and had come to the same medicine choice. In the next few minutes, the class put together all their notes and collectively came to the same remedy.
I asked them if they were prepared to give the medicine? I was asked if it would be the medicine that I would choose. I told them that this was their case. They needed to be responsible for it. I would not comment or advise. The silence was palpable. The quiet female student who had made such a reasoned diagnosis previously said.. “If it was my child, I think I would give it because I am fairly sure that the reasons to give it outweigh those not to”.
We gave the patients mother the remedy in the 200th potency to be given in water, one dose a day for 3 days and see him again in 4 weeks. I told the class that I would handle any calls from the mother but they would not know until the next appointment.
4 weeks later the boy presented himself again. 90% of the problem had cleared up! during the follow up examination… some of the symptoms had changed, and in repertorising the present state, they came to the previously FAILED prescription only. They did not know what to do. So I asked them if they were satisfied with the previous choice and they were……. so I asked them why they were doubting themselves now. Nervously they decided to give 2 doses of the medicine. He presented himself in 4 weeks after this change of medicine with ALL of the ancilliary symptoms cleared up, and just a few traces of the skin problem left. We represcribed the 2nd medicine again and he cleared up within a few weeks.
I had a long discussion with them regarding the choices of medicine being made on sound observation, and how that the 2nd medicine given, and the same one chosen by the other practitioners was necessary, but only when it was required by a complete symptom picture. It would not work until the core of the problem was dealt with.
As a side note, I just checked a few Registers of practitioners today, and I saw only one name from this group. The sad thing is even though several of them prior to leaving the college had a firm grasp on Hahnemanns principles of practice, they nearly all changed their method of prescribing to Seghal or Sankaran or Sherr.