The second mistake made in prescribing.

han2Although it might seem a silly thing to say, Most prescribers dont take a case relating to the disease.

For whatever reasons, the modern homoeopath continue the delusion of treating the person and not the disease. WE DO NOT TREAT THE PERSON, we treat the DISEASE AS EXPRESSED THROUGH ALTERED SYMPTOMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. as a previous article stated, this is the complete picture of the DISEASE, and not the person.

This negates EVERY personal preference or personality trait of the person if it is unaltered or unchanged in any way prior to or during the disease state we are looking at. Hahemann in his instructions for taking a case made this abundantly clear.

Although any homoeopath can fail in making a correct prescription, would it not be much better to eliminate incorrect case taking from the checklist for sorting out the problem from the outset?  Better to relook at the SX and adjust accordingly depending on the patients reaction to a remedy that did not work as expected, than to have a lot of meaningless and useless symptoms that bear no relationship to the case of disease being treated.

There are many homoeopaths who spend literally 8-16 hours taking a ‘case’. Unbelievable. It is not about a personality profile, or a legend of likes and dislikes and every event that happened in the patients life. It is about having a factual picture of the presenting sx of the disease in front of you so that a match can be made for a substance that produces the same SX of the disease state. That is also why the theory of one remedy cures in a disease is incorrect. This is based on KENTS religious beliefs and not Hahnemanns research. Remedies produce SX. When the SX change, so does the remedy.

Disease is usually a progression of events toward the present state. Each stage of the disease is usually of a different state. Depending on where we intervene, it will be a different remedy picture. Take Croup for example. If we are in the beginning stages of interventions, we will probably give ACONITE for the fevers and inflammation present. As that stage is ‘altered’ we move towards Spongia for the Croup SX of the cough and ancilliary effects of the disease. If the SX presented are not quite the Croupy cough, we may well give Hepar Sulph and then Spongia, and even alternate these remedies as the SX of the disease alternate. So that is 3 remedies give to cure one disease at each stage.  Giving Hepar or Spongia when the patient requires Aconite will do nothing. The SX do not match the prescription. But in ALL cases, the ALTERED DISEASE STATE is the only indicator for a prescription. Not the personality or the patients preferences-unless ALTERED during the disease state.

Any practitioner who has based his or her practice on Kentian philosophy is going to be wrong in understanding Hahnemanns directions. Thats just the way it is. That goes for the teachers too.

If you have a desire to be a better physician, then the onus is on you to practice Hahnemannian homoeopathy. Just because KENT said and other say that he was a devoted follower of Hahnemanns medical practice…… does not make it so.

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 responses to “The second mistake made in prescribing.

  1. Marc Van Wijk

    What you say might be correct in acute situations but I don’t believe you will cure chronic diseases without taking the dominant miasmatic state into account – as Hahnemann told us…

    • HI Mark
      We either prescribe on totality, or we dont.
      There are three states, Psora, Syphilis and Gonorrhea.
      If it is not of venereal origin, please FULLY understand what that means according to Hahnemann, then that leaves Psora.

      Given that a miasmatic infection or result of infection, is the cause of repeated illness and weaknesses, Then according to Hahnemann, we will see glimpses of it as we treat by similars, and then as the underneath state shows itself, we can treat that with the ‘appropriate similar medicine”.

      There is no way to ascertain which miasm it is without treating the expression of the disease, unless we know for sure there is a venereal infection involved and treat that accordingly with mercurius for the actual infection that is contained within the organism. The rest is treating the sx and watching for the base infection the person has and hitting it as it shows itself.

      We have casebooks of his clinical work. We see where he experimented with giving sulphur and other medicines to ‘stir’ up the dormant underneath issues. However in the end, he stayed with similars, and kept working backwards and giving medicines when it stuck or symptoms of an underneath issue arose.

      Hahnemann wrote to Boenninghausen when the Baron was compiling his repertory of Antipsoric medicines and advised him to not differentiate between medicines because a prescription had to be made on the law of similars. An understanding of what a miasm IS-will allow a prescriber to deal with it. For example, a patient might be susceptible to sore throats and coughs. After repeated treatments, it is noticed that a low grade bronchial affection is present, and that the patient was treated allopathically for TB 30 years ago. This infection (miasm) can now be treated and relieve the patient of the repeated sore throats etc. THIS IS THE BASIS OF HAHNEMANNS MODEL of 3 main infections for humanity. We cannot jump in, we can only treat as it comes to light.

      • Marc Van Wijk

        If a patient shows in his diseased stage a clear, let’s say, sycotic picture, then it’s obvious you look for a remedy which has those sycotic sx in it. But even Hahnemann told us to take personal characteristics into account when searching for the right remedy: ‘…the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration…’ (Aph 5)

      • Hi Marc
        Read 6 to see why…….

        And what is a clear case of Sycosis? Why are you looking for symptoms of sycosis when you you should be looking for presenting symptoms of the disorder?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s