Are you a homoeopath? Do you make prescriptions for people’s health using the dilutions? Do you advise people on their health using only this method?
A few years ago I was a member of a discussion group that included very well known medical and lay members of the homeopathic community who professed a commitment to forwarding the practice using classical methodologies.
During one discussion the question of what to do when a patient was thought to perhaps have a cancer. One of the practitioners stated emphatically that it was essential to have the full investigations regarding a cancer. I asked him why he thought it essential. His reply was “of course it is essential! Only then could the patient be directed toward the proper treatment for his or her cancer!”
I asked him “so what is the proper treatment of the cancer?” There was a deafening silence.
This person is the president of an American homeopathic medical Association. I quit the group very shortly after because I realised our aims, knowledge and understanding of the therapy were very different.
One of the problems within our therapy today is the lack of knowledge, understanding or comprehension regarding the law of similars and how it is different from the allopathic treatment that is the current medical status quo. To add to this problem, most people taught homeopathy in the last 80 years, have the disadvantage of being taught Kentian philosophy instead of the Hahnemannian tried and tested protocols for the application of the law of similars within his therapeutic model. The therapy is in the sad position of being based upon the Swedenborgian religious and philosophical writings of the supposedly Hahnemannian practitioner called James Tyler Kent. This man was the epitome of the wrong thinking of the late 19th-century American school of thought as headed by Hering.
If you read the writings of Richard Haehl a biographer of the life and works of Samuel Hahnemann, you will see that Hahnemann complained bitterly that while many embraced the tenets of homeopathy, they were not prepared to practice it properly or redress the faults introduced by an allopathic application of the medicines. So from the beginning of the introduction of homeopathy, very few people took the time to learn the application correctly.
Of late, I have seen many of my colleagues rush for allopathic treatment when an incident occurs. I do believe there is a time and place for pain relief or occasional use of an Antibiotic when an infection is overwhelming, however, Im surprised that people of many years in the therapy still think of it as a second rate medical practice.
It is my belief that the REALITY of low success in the clinic, plus faulty understanding of the methodology is to blame. Kents insistence on mental prescribing based on personality has destroyed many a good prescription. No where in his writings do we see Hahnemann deviate from his rule of prescribing for altered and changed symptoms ONLY.
A practitioner needs to be convinced of the efficacy of the therapy and needs to know how to practice it according to Hahnemann. If not, there is no place for a person who always resorts to allopathy when his or her prescription fails.