Marc Van Wijk wrote: June 23, 2015 at 8:52 pm.
But even Hahnemann told us to take personal characteristics into account when searching for the right remedy:
Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, 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.
It is a very important aphorism from Hahnemann’s point of view. From a clinical perspective, the physician should also possess the knowledge of how to distinguish an acute disease from a chronic one especially with regard to the most probable exciting cause of the former and the fundamental cause to be inferred from the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease of the latter. aphorism five was introduced in the fourth edition of the organon and it is to be read along with aphorism 72 of that edition.
The last sentence of aphorism five implies a distinctive approach to the study of disease conditions. The orthodox school attempts to study the disease, that the patient has, whereas the homeopathic school attempts to study the patient that has the disease. Diagnosis of the disease for example, disease determination is the aim of the former schools whereas disease individualisation and diagnosis of the person are the extra twofold aims of the latter school. This constitutional diagnosis (including actual constitutional diagnosis, developmental constitutional diagnosis and environmental constitutional diagnosis) looms large in the homeopathic system of treatment. An illustration will make the point clear.
One man is suffering from cough, fever, pain in the chest et cetera, we have to diagnose the disease first i.e. whether it is a case of bronchitis, pneumonia, broncho-pneumonia, influenza or tuberculosis et cetera. This is disease determination or diagnosis. Next we have to find out the individualising features of a particular disease e.g. the patient is suffering from acute lobar pneumonia.
In the homeopathic treatment we have to find out in what ways this particular pneumonia patient differs from other pneumonia patients.
This is what is called disease individualisation. Suppose the patient gives a history of recurrent attacks of acute lobar pneumonia. Here we have to determine the type of the person who is getting these recurrent attacks, i.e. what are the constitutional peculiarities of the person, independent of his actual disease. This is what is known as diagnosis of the person. This is the distinctive work of the homeopathic school. So Hahnemann wants to take into consideration the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient especially when the disease is chronic his moral and intellectual character is occupation, his mode of living, and habits, his social and domestic relations his age sexual functions et cetera.
We do not prescribe on these constitutional peculiarities, we use them to differentiate as per aphorism 6.