Its a hard lesson to learn. Not only for the patient but also for the practitioner.
I am not proud to admit that some of my failures in treatment have been because of not understanding WHY Hahnemann wrote to not repeat the medicine whilst improvement was happening in a patient. In my mind, repeating the dose would speed along the process and so in the early days I would re prescribe when improvement was slowing down rather than having stopped.
Here is what we sometime forget, or in many cases, do not know. NO MEDICINE CURES. Once we grasp this simple fact and fully take this on board, we can begin to understand the process of what happens when we prescribe for a patient. It is the immune system of the patient that cures.
A patient will present a set of symptoms that have arisen from an infection or disease process. We collect the information and place the expression of the existing state in a collation of symptoms. We then analyse the problem in terms of the pathology and change from the normal expression of health, and examine each symptom in relation to its:
- Modifying factors
- Relationship with other symptoms.
In doing this for each expression of the disease, NOT the preferences or personality of the patient, we begin to see HOW the disease is reflected individually in the patient. With this knowledge, we look for a well proven homoeopathic medicine that has the ability to create a similar set of symptoms, in effect produce an (increased) state of DIS-ease in a healthy person. In administering a medicine of similarity, what we are doing is amplifying what we consider the key symptoms or centre of the disease, and thus making the immune response ´focus´more intensely on dealing with this stronger disease state.
At this point we have modified the immune response to a singular assault on the strongest presenting problem, be it artificially induced, we observe changes in the economy as the process of removing the disease begins. Given that we do NOT know HOW the immune system will work or what it needs to clear first, we need to ALLOW the process to work to completion, or as Hahnemann states, we will ruin the case.
What does this mean in real terms?
In chronic cases, it took a long time for the patient to develop symptoms to the point where they are in the grip of a disease. Each part of the disease process followed another part and laid an extra layer of pathology until the presenting state is before you. We can only remove from the presenting symptoms with the newest symptoms taking precedence. In this way we hope to remove the disease state slowly back to the core issue layer by layer… the reality is that we do not know which symptoms are tied in to the underneath problem, and therefore might require time and various potencies of the same medicine to work We also do not know HOW it will work or when. What we do know is that as long as the patient is responding to the remedy, no matter how slowly is that the immune response is working. I find that I am reluctant to interfere with that process simply because my experience of working with LM or Q potencies shows me that over medicating can cause problems for an already weakened immune system.
Male, late 50s presented with skin eruption on lower limbs of both legs. Hot red and flaking. Started interior side of right lower leg and round spots developed on anterior side of lower limbs growing to same size as original area. Itching, red flaking. The eruptions then started on the left leg mirroring the right left from starting on the inside and then going to the outside of the leg.
Based on the prescribing symptoms.. Sulphur 200c was given in water, 2 doses 5 hours apart. (due to initial dose manufacturer doubts over the medicines viabilty. )The patient reported tiredness and increase in itching a week later. By the end of 4 weeks, the redness had disappeared, the flaking stopped and the eruptions shrinking. Although the tiredness continued, the medicine was allowed to work for 2 months. After two months mild itching returned and the eruptions were not progressing further. This time the patient was given a single dose of LM 01. The eruptions then continued to clear up. a month later, the patient had a prostate issue with a mild infection. In the repertorisation Sulphur was again indicated so the medicine was allowed to work uninterrupted. Despite increase in desire to urinate and mild aching in the prostate, no medicine was given. 2 weeks later, these symptoms cleared up by 80%. The patient is due for re evaluation soon t see if the same medicine is indicated or a change required.
We must be careful not to interfere with the immune response from implementing a medicinal action. Too much medicine is far worse than too little especially in a weakened state. Better to wait than to initiate a problem. In this case it is obvious that there are things going on in the patients health that needed treating carefully and sparingly. Due attention to detail and not being in a hurry to over medicate is a must. Once the medicine is given, the immune response goes into action and it will do what imust and take as long as it needs. We help it along when no further progress is happening and not before.